Really it doesn’t explain anything that isn’t already explained, it doesn’t simplify the data that we have, and it doesn’t point a direction to search for new evidence. Also you know lots of people around the same time were advancing drugs -> enlightenment ideas and all we got out of it is some bad sci-fi.
The evidence presented 60 years ago is the same evidence they have today. All the work done on understanding history and the human brain hasn’t added to those theories. Not a great sign. Successful theories get more supporting evidence over time not the same level of “wouldn’t it be cool?”.
I never said I was against it’s use. I am clear that this sequence of historical events are explained adequately without saying it is part of it. Just because X happened does not mean Y was a factor, and it doesn’t mean I am against Y.
Really it doesn’t explain anything that isn’t already explained, it doesn’t simplify the data that we have, and it doesn’t point a direction to search for new evidence. Also you know lots of people around the same time were advancing drugs -> enlightenment ideas and all we got out of it is some bad sci-fi.
The evidence presented 60 years ago is the same evidence they have today. All the work done on understanding history and the human brain hasn’t added to those theories. Not a great sign. Successful theories get more supporting evidence over time not the same level of “wouldn’t it be cool?”.
All we got out of it was 50 years of prohibition because of how afraid the govt was of free thinking individuals
I never said I was against it’s use. I am clear that this sequence of historical events are explained adequately without saying it is part of it. Just because X happened does not mean Y was a factor, and it doesn’t mean I am against Y.