• daanniiOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Erowid is not a scientific resource.

    Just because some people refer to scientific articles in their explanations does not mean, it, itself, is a scientific resource.

    For instance. What I posted in the comments is not a scientific resource.

    Even if I used links to actual resources. The resources are. But my comment is not.

    Because it is not verified or peer reviewed.

    Opinions, even those founded on science, are not scientific resources unless they meet other standards.

    • jve
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      You know there isn’t much [references] in a single location aside from Wikipedia.

      https://www.erowid.org/references/refs.php?S=lsd

      For instance. What I posted in the comments is not a scientific resource.

      Yeah, why is that? My link has thousands of peer reviewed journal articles and you have provided nothing of the sort.

      • daanniiOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The definition of a scientific resource is a RESOURCE with scientific observations and reporting that is peer reviewed or has some official review process like a university website with scholars writing the information that is verified by other scholars.

        It’s the review process by people who are authorities on the topic that make that distinction. Scholars. Other scientist.

        A comment on social media and anecdotal websites hosting forums is not a scientific resource. It’s opinions.

        As I said earlier. Something doesn’t have to be scientifically validated to be true or real.

        But it does have to be science to be science.

        More specifically, experiments must use the scientific method and specific research statistic computations to support hypotheses which then are used to create theories.

        Erowid does not have a review process where a senior scientist reviews any of the things posted on it.

        Neither does Lemmy or faceb9ok,

        Why is review so important?

        Because humans are biased and our own subjective interpretation of patterns and events is not objective.

        Just to illustrate some of the ways our thinking and interpretation of events is flawed, see cognitive biases on wikipedia.

        And there are way more than these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

        And have a look at memory errors while you are at it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_error

        Oh and the best one. Bias blind sight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot

        None of us, and I mean literally no one, is immune from these problems. Not me. Not you.

        It’s why the only way we know anything for sure is through scientific methods of investigation. And even those aren’t full proof against bias.

        I’m sorry that you don’t like the very basic explanation I gave of the properties of a drug you like. Some how that’s offensive to you.

        I don’t know what to tell you.

        I did get a few minor facts mixed up and i corrected them in the text. I Left in the original text and I crossed it out so that people could see I made a mistake and fixed it. Nothing I said was a huge big mistake about the drug. I misquoted the size of the tabs (10mm vs 5mm) and I was mistaken about it being neutralized in the stomach.

        My gawd. Lock me up and send me a $500 fine. Jesus.

        Maybe reflect on why it’s so important to you that your narrative of what the drug is, is being attacked from simple facts about how it works.

        Why do you care how it works ? Why are you so invested in this? Why does it make you angry when someone explains the drug from a scientific perspective ?

        If you don’t want to hear the scientific perspective then just ignore it.

        It’s what a lot of people do.

        • jve
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          Jesus Christ that’s a wall of text. Did you even click the link?

          It’s literally a bunch of links to scientific journals.

          Maybe reflect on why it’s so important to you that your narrative of what the drug is, is being attacked from simple facts about how it works.

          You can’t even keep straight which thread you’re on.

          I haven’t argued anything resembling your straw man. I’ve only argued that you seem to suck as a researcher.

          Your inability to accept that erowid is more than a forum where people talk about their experiences, which you keep doubling down on, is a pretty good indicator of that.

          • daanniiOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Your links were irrelevant to your argument that erowid is a scientific resource.

            It’s not.

            • jve
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Your links were irrelevant to your argument that erowid is a scientific resource.

              It’s not.

              And where did I make that argument, again?

              • daanniiOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 hours ago

                What exactly is your point ?

                First you say I’m not a “real” researcher because I didn’t give erowid as a resource.

                I said it’s not scientific. You say “uh yeah it is”. I explain why it’s not and what “scientific” means because a lot of people are actually mis informed on this. And I didn’t want to argue semantics.

                And then you say. That .

                Are you also incapable of following your own arguments ?

                What IS your argument then ?

                • jve
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 hours ago

                  I never said you weren’t a real researcher. I said you are a bad researcher.

                  I said this because you claimed there was no place you could find a lot of links to scientific resources outside of Wikipedia. I provided a link to erowid, which has literally thousands of such articles.

                  I also said this because of other comments of yours, but I never mentioned them.

                  I said it’s not scientific. You say “uh yeah it is”

                  No. I linked to pages with thousands of links to scientific journals. A link which you seemed not to have been aware of.

                  Are you also incapable of following your own arguments ?

                  I’m incapable of following what you think my argument is.

                  What IS your argument then ?

                  My argument is simply that all the evidence in the comments of this shitpost seem to indicate that you are not a good researcher.

                  • daanniiOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 hour ago

                    Because erowid does not meet the definition of a resource.

                    Again.

                    Links to resources is not itself a scientific resource.

                    I defined for you multiple times what “scientific resource” means.

                    Unlike erowid, maps actually conducted scientific research.

                    That’s why they are listed as a resource.

                    Even Wikipedia has people review the material.

                    Erowid does not.

                    You are uninformed about what science is. You refuse to acknowledge my definition. You know literally nothing about my research capabilities. Maybe I’m terrible at research but you wouldnt know one way or the other.

                    Which makes your opinion uninformed and therefore irrelevant.

                    Erowid are opinions of people who use recreational drugs. It’s not written by scientist. Or researchers. And research can be misunderstood by lay people.

                    As I said. Some of the information may be accurate. Doesn’t matter. It’s still not a scientific resource.

                    I, as a scientist, would not tell people to use lemmy or reddit to learn about neuroscience. I definitely wouldn’t advise using erowid for the same reasons.

                    Citing a resource does not make the text a resource.