Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 140

Thread: K-Punk on Weed!!

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    NYC , Tokyo
    Posts
    1,914

    Default

    it's different strokes for different folks , innit ?

    for me nothing better after having a nice smoke last night
    then staying up using "The Mummies Of Urumchi" and web to catch up on proto- Celtic Hallstatt culture in the 5th Century as it extended into Halych /Galych - Galicia in what is now Western Ukraine , just looking for my mom's roots ...
    Ck the clock , past midnight , 2 hours had passed . Slotted another round of music ...

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    84

    Default

    I have no deep theoretical insights here, so I'll make do with some random observation.

    I used to smoke a fair bit and I was completely autistic on it. I'd sit in a corner with a J and not want to talk to anyone. It had the opposite effect on some of my mates.

    What it was wonderful for was listening to music. I remember tuning into a London pirate in 2000 after a sesh. They were playing non-stop 2-step and the sounds formed these lithe, dancing alien creatures in my head. Like Aliens - but beautiful and sexy.

    Er... anyway, other people's drug experiences are the height of tedium.

    A nation on pot?

    Well, it'd be fat, boring, incessantly talking about its minor emotional proble- oh, hang on. K-punk may be on to something there.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    225

    Default

    Um, referring back several posts, but I'd just like to interject that people can say science is a discourse as much as they like, but science is not and will never be epistemologically equivalent to critical theory.

    The thing that makes science science, is that it is based on empirically testable statements verified by independent individuals. So any statement about science such as "testosterone makes you male" can accurately be prefaced by "to the best of our knowledge". Statements based on science are made with precisely defined terms. Science is a collective endeavour.

    Theory, on the other hand, is utterly different. It's based on individual viewpoints. A statement based on theory can only accurately be prefaced by "I think" or "Deleuze thinks". Statements based on theory need to have their terms defined, because every theorist seems to have a different definition of "gender" or "bodies without organs" or whatever.

    If science is a discourse, the reason why it occupies its elevated position is not because of cultural prejudice, it's because it's the most convincing discourse out there (and I don't think "convincing" is an equivalent statement to "true" or "oppressive" btw). If you ask anyone to choose between what a superannuated frenchman considers masculinity to be about or what thousands of individuals working within a scientific framework think, most are going to choose the latter. That is why science superseded religion and continues to occupy the position it does. To claim otherwise is to invite justifiable ridicule, particularly if you claim to be "rationalist".

    Not that anyone should need any evidence that scientists have a thorough grasp of theory, but theorists have very little grasp of science, but if you want proof, you need look no further than the Sokal hoax.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Flatlands
    Posts
    131

    Default Reply to Backjob

    If science is always so empirically justifiable, why are there so many debates within it based upon the same data? I appreciate the hypothetical nature of scientific theories but am intrigued by your claim that the empirical evidence always sorts out disputes 'to the best of our knowledge'. The first example which springs to mind is the dispute between punctuated equilibrium and graduated evolution, but I could come up with others if pressed. Has anybody arrived at the Grand Unified Theory yet?

    Theory is based upon individual viewpoints to the same extent that science is. If anyone says to you "Deleuze thinks", you should ask them why he thinks that. Deleuze (and other serious thinkers) argue on the basis of evidence; they do not draw theories out of a hat. Often, as with science, the evidence is contradictory.

    Sokal? The initial hoax was very funny: Not because it showed he knew about theory whilst the editors of Social Text knew nothing about science, but because it showed that the editors were so happy to get a 'real scientist' submitting a paper to their science issue that they would publsh any old tat. This says more about the power of science than the paucity of theory, although I admit that several people made absolute twats of themselves in the aftermath; one of these was, of course, Sokal.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,684

    Default

    theory is by any definition, simply opinion. science is based in fact, as far as we can discern, therefore give me science any day over theory.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    لندورا
    Posts
    3,205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stelfox
    theory is by any definition, simply opinion. science is based in fact, as far as we can discern, therefore give me science any day over theory.
    science:
    a load of spurious opinionated bolix if you ask me
    i mean the pope says he's infallible but that don't mean shit

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    لندورا
    Posts
    3,205

    Default what's this got to do with weed anyway?

    mebbie a new thread for the great 'theory vs practise' debate?
    &mebbie if we made it a poll we could see whether ganja-smokers are more or less inclined to talk theoretical bollix

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    22,359

    Default

    yeah and it might be a nice idea to start a thread for theory bods to discuss theory amongst themselves without boorish oafs with chips on their shoulders about never finishing university butting in and shouting about theory being a load of pretnetious drivel. a little safe haven for them, free from carping and mockery.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Flatlands
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stelfox
    theory is by any definition, simply opinion. science is based in fact, as far as we can discern, therefore give me science any day over theory.
    My point was about critical theory contra scientific theory. I have a suspicion that when you say 'science', you actually mean 'engineering'.

    Do you know many scientists? They are very opinionated people in my experience.
    Last edited by johneffay; 06-12-2004 at 02:31 PM. Reason: Should have proofed before I posted

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,684

    Default

    when i say science i mean science, because that's what i said. if i meant engineering i'd have said engineering. and yeah, i know tons of scientists, one of whom recently came up with the best question i've ever heard: "so, art... what does it actually do?"

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The Flatlands
    Posts
    131

    Default Reply to Stelfox

    So you'll be aware of the hierarchy within science where chemists look down on biologists because they deal with 'more primal' elements and physicists look down upon chemists and biologists for the same reason. Then there's the question of 'fringe scientists' such as psychologists. Is this objectivity?

    What do artists do? Given all your posts on the music thread, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just trying to wind me up.

    I'm anything but anti-science, however it's patently obvious that
    1. The structure of scientific methodology means that it is not, and cannot ever be, purely objective. Most scientists admit this.
    2. So far, there are things in this world which science has not got a handle on, but that art, the humanities, and (dare I say it?) religion seem to engage with more successfully.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    2,212

    Default Stelfox Vs Effay: Seconds out, round two

    Quote Originally Posted by johneffay
    My point was about critical theory contra scientific theory. I have a suspicion that when you say 'science', you actually mean 'engineering'.
    ... a point you could do with expounding on a little. I think putting the word "engineering" into Dave's mouth is a terrible faux pas, you gotta do better than that brotha!

    Quote Originally Posted by stelfox
    theory is by any definition, simply opinion. science is based in fact, as far as we can discern, therefore give me science any day over theory.
    Glib or what! C'mon Stelfox you can do better than that! Posting in a hurry were we?

    Quote Originally Posted by johneffay
    1. The structure of scientific methodology means that it is not, and cannot ever be, purely objective. Most scientists admit this.
    Excellent response...

    I would point out however that it's not at all clear that "most scientists" would accept that science cannot be purely objective in a way which made that acceptance truly meaningful. Most, if not all, philosophers of science, yes, but I'm not sure all scientists do so.

    Otherwise, why would zeteticism exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by johneffay
    2. So far, there are things in this world which science has not got a handle on, but that art, the humanities, and (dare I say it?) religion seem to engage with more successfully.
    ... and not a bad expansion of your argument.

    Of course, to refer back to the origin of this thread, if you get three scientists and three academics from the humanities in a room, and got them stoned, then you'd really be on the way to getting a handle on "art, the humanities, and (dare I say it?) religion".

    Required reading for this thread: The New Inquisition by Robert Anton Wilson.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,684

    Default

    well i'd rather have proper, real science that attempts to be empirical than nonsensical pseudo-scientific rambling from people who don't even bother to check widely available facts. i am not letting go of this one. high-level consumption of THC has been seen to drastically lower levels of three major male hormones in a number of human and animal subjects. therefore weed smoking DOES NOT make you male, if anything it makes you LESS male. i am correct and i have science on my side. why is that so hard to accept?

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    2,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stelfox
    well i'd rather have proper, real science that attempts to be empirical than nonsensical pseudo-scientific rambling from people who don't even bother to check widely available facts.
    Woah fella! Easy now. We're all friends here. Back to your dislike of theory... theory isn't opinion. C'mon, you must know that! Same thing as... well, a lot of philosophers of science would say that what science comes up with -- the best that science comes up with -- is theory. It has a hypothesis, goes out looking or evidence either way, comes up with an idea of what's going on -- and that's always a theory. Newton's laws? Theory. Quantum mechanics -- the single most useful, most proven, most mind-boggling idea to come out of a dandruff-strewn lab -- it's a theory. 'S what they call it in the trade, and why paradigms collapse. You read any Thomas Kuhn? Thought you had.

    By the way -- on weed making your balls shrink or something -- well, it's been a while since I talked seriously with a genito-urologist about this, I think it was 2000 in fact, but what I heard back then was that it was a suggestion, not yet proven. But let's face it, if you're facing a lack of testosterone in the trouser snake department a quick blast of Sizzla should boost yer levels, so what Mary taketh away, she also giveth!

    And anyway, I have two bouncing baby boys, so I may be limp, but I got balls of steel and every seed-shot's a winner!

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,899

    Default

    i was reading about the brain making it's own natural marijuana-like compounds called endocannibaloids, research has exposed a new type of signalling system in the brain based around them, it's a retrograde system that only usually occurs when the nervous system is developing, so it's quite unusual.

    work being done on it could produce some of the benefits that cannibis has on the brain when it contacts cannibaloid receptors (the proteins imbedded in the membranes of the cells, like neurons etc).

    the benefits are the ones that scientists have proposed for a while , ie pain regulation, control of anxiety, inducing hunger and controlling vomiting, nausea, anxiety and neurological disorders etc, things which are useful for treating various disceases but without the side affects like paranoia etc and the side affects that Mark points out + possibly some of the nauseous social aspects that have grown around dope smoking .

    My question is, if a readily avaliable pill that gave some of the benefits and pleasures of smoking weed by working with the endocannibaloids, would the smokers here take it, and quit smoking, sitting around in rooms watching the bill, barely talking and all that shit?
    Last edited by mms; 06-12-2004 at 05:46 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •