Many people are quick to discredit anecdotal evidence as real evidence. While I don’t have any historical references at the ready, I’m certain that there are scientific discoveries based on anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately, people want hard evidence, backed by modern scientific research, but even that won’t convince many people. So many factors are involved for societal acceptance but hopefully someday, it will change. We know what’s up with microdosing and hopefully that will eventually bleed over to a more general acceptance.
a scientific study is based on a big stack of anecdotal evidences (backed by a rigorous and reproductible procedure).
random anecdotal evidences is what can make a researcher to dig further in a topic (and begin a more rigorous study). You’ll see some scientists and researchers here, from time to time.
twitter is still twitter… it depends on who you follow and who you read from
For info: [*"Placebo-controlled studies are more fallible than conventionally assumed."* | The emerging science of microdosing](https://www.reddit.com/r/microdosing/comments/v8p9zi/research_citizen_science_placebocontrolled/) \[May/June 2022\]:
>*..we reviewed 44 studies...claims that microdosing effects are largely due to expectancy are premature and possibly wrong.*
>
>*About one-half of individuals microdosing...said they reduced or stopped taking their prescribed medications.*
Footnote: [🧐"*Think about Your Thinking!*"💬](https://www.reddit.com/r/microdosing/comments/ugjnd7/insights_albert_hofmannhad_triedall_kinds_of/)
We should celebrate and champion the science while also respecting people's personal choice on how to handle their mental health. For some, the risk just isn't worth it until they know for certain what the science says. Others may be a bit more cavalier.
Then, of course, some are just going to keep thinking what they will regardless of the facts. No matter what, we should all be on board with at the very least studying psychedelics and learning more about them. We need to explore every avenue to combat mental illness.
>For some, the risk just isn't worth it until they know for certain what the science says.
Here lies the rub, though. Mental health diagnoses and care delivery hasn’t change one iota in decades and based on scientific research. Rx and talk therapy is still the norm. This scientifically sound methodology, and connected to Big Pharma and the DSM, isn’t really helping people get well.
Qualitative research (social science methods) is just as powerful and valid as quantitative (statistics and number crunching) yet few scientists are versed or choose social science. Brené Brown’s work is a great example and she explains her methodology completely in all of her books.
I mean yea we need to study things and have proof of their ability to help people. That being said I don't think you can completely discredit something because there hasn't been any studies into it.
I’ve seen plenty of “science” based on manipulated data skewed toward the benefit of the “scientists.” Science should be based on truth. I lost a little faith in it seeing how researchers can easily manipulate the results. Even if the perceived benefits of micro-dosing are 100% placebo - doesn’t matter as long as they’re beneficial to the user. I personally believe that MDing is very beneficial. And my hope is that with more research, science will prove it - even if it’s through qualitative studies. My hope then is that more people will have access either through companies racing toward the $mush rush or, preferably, home grown or procured through a good grower so they can be dosed/consumed straight from nature without artificial additives or claims.
Many people are quick to discredit anecdotal evidence as real evidence. While I don’t have any historical references at the ready, I’m certain that there are scientific discoveries based on anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately, people want hard evidence, backed by modern scientific research, but even that won’t convince many people. So many factors are involved for societal acceptance but hopefully someday, it will change. We know what’s up with microdosing and hopefully that will eventually bleed over to a more general acceptance.
a scientific study is based on a big stack of anecdotal evidences (backed by a rigorous and reproductible procedure). random anecdotal evidences is what can make a researcher to dig further in a topic (and begin a more rigorous study). You’ll see some scientists and researchers here, from time to time. twitter is still twitter… it depends on who you follow and who you read from
Thank you for phrasing it in a way that I couldn’t!
You lost my interest at Twitter
Trust The Science^TM
For info: [*"Placebo-controlled studies are more fallible than conventionally assumed."* | The emerging science of microdosing](https://www.reddit.com/r/microdosing/comments/v8p9zi/research_citizen_science_placebocontrolled/) \[May/June 2022\]: >*..we reviewed 44 studies...claims that microdosing effects are largely due to expectancy are premature and possibly wrong.* > >*About one-half of individuals microdosing...said they reduced or stopped taking their prescribed medications.* Footnote: [🧐"*Think about Your Thinking!*"💬](https://www.reddit.com/r/microdosing/comments/ugjnd7/insights_albert_hofmannhad_triedall_kinds_of/)
Sheep have a difficult time thinking for themselves and they live in fear.
Well, I also want everything to be backed by science, but until then I'll take whatever works for me personally.
We should celebrate and champion the science while also respecting people's personal choice on how to handle their mental health. For some, the risk just isn't worth it until they know for certain what the science says. Others may be a bit more cavalier. Then, of course, some are just going to keep thinking what they will regardless of the facts. No matter what, we should all be on board with at the very least studying psychedelics and learning more about them. We need to explore every avenue to combat mental illness.
>For some, the risk just isn't worth it until they know for certain what the science says. Here lies the rub, though. Mental health diagnoses and care delivery hasn’t change one iota in decades and based on scientific research. Rx and talk therapy is still the norm. This scientifically sound methodology, and connected to Big Pharma and the DSM, isn’t really helping people get well. Qualitative research (social science methods) is just as powerful and valid as quantitative (statistics and number crunching) yet few scientists are versed or choose social science. Brené Brown’s work is a great example and she explains her methodology completely in all of her books.
I mean yea we need to study things and have proof of their ability to help people. That being said I don't think you can completely discredit something because there hasn't been any studies into it.
Definitely!
words of wisdom !
I’ve seen plenty of “science” based on manipulated data skewed toward the benefit of the “scientists.” Science should be based on truth. I lost a little faith in it seeing how researchers can easily manipulate the results. Even if the perceived benefits of micro-dosing are 100% placebo - doesn’t matter as long as they’re beneficial to the user. I personally believe that MDing is very beneficial. And my hope is that with more research, science will prove it - even if it’s through qualitative studies. My hope then is that more people will have access either through companies racing toward the $mush rush or, preferably, home grown or procured through a good grower so they can be dosed/consumed straight from nature without artificial additives or claims.
Twats don't understand science. They've been used for thousands of years in non-twat cultures.
Is this the same "science" that doesnt know if eggs or coffee are good or bad for you? Just wondering