Talk:Terence McKenna/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

WP:FRINGE

Rosencomet, we still have a problem regarding WP:FRINGE. Earlier you asserted that you read it, but you then went on to say, "Nowhere can I find the notion that it is the purpose of Wikipedia to sort science from pseudoscience". However it's right there in WP:FRINGE, especially WP:FRINGE/PS. The McKenna article deals with pseudoscience and therefore falls under discretionary sanctions, but you've continued to claim otherwise.

You recently deleted criticism of novelty theory for the second time. This is a violation of WP:NPOV, in particular WP:PSCI. I have cited WP:PARITY again and again, in edit comments and on this talk page, but it doesn't appear as though you realize what PARITY is about. If you have a better source that can satisfy WP:PSCI then please offer it; in the meantime, do not delete such criticism.

Friction began with your very first comment above, where you seemingly didn't understand that I was removing unsourced material added a notorious WP vandal.[1] When someone makes a point -- especially one that cites a policy -- you need to respond by addressing that point instead of merely stating your own opinion. I hope future interactions will go smoother. vzaak 18:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• I stand by my edit of this single sentence because it uses only one source, a high school student's essay. I also reiterate that this is NOT an article about a fringe theory, it is a biographical article about an author, and a biographical article is not the proper venue to argue the merits of every theory of the subject, any more than every biography about a priest should include a section debating whether God exists or his beliefs are valid. I do think a single section about criticism, with PROPER citations (not blogs, as you keep inserting, nor one sentence in a non-scientist's book claiming with NO support that "the scientific community considers this to be pseudoscience"), would be appropriate, but not a refutation next to each report of the subject's ideas. In my opinion, you are misapplying WP:FRINGE/PS, and WP:NPOV has no relevance here at all. WP:PARITY in no way contradicts my assertion that a high school student's essay is not a reliable source. At NO POINT did I argue whether one or another of McKenna's ideas are pseudoscience; I have argued whether your citations are valid and reliable and properly placed. In particular, besides the high school student, I question Sam Woolfe's article in his personal blog as appropriate[2], Brazilian film maker Alexandra Bruce's single sentence claim that "the scientific community considers this the be pseudoscience" to be relevant from the glossary of her book 2012: Science or Superstition (since she offers no reason to believe that she knows what "the scientific community" considers, such as a study or poll, and therefor we must assume it is merely this filmmaker's personal opinion), and whether archaeologist Johan Normark's article, again in a personal blog, in any way supports the statement made by Bruce, especially since he does not mention the opinion of the scientific community at all [3] (his article may or may not be useful for other purposes, but not to support this statement). You can keep repeating your claims about pseudoscience as much as you want, but you keep ignoring that I have NEVER argued that point. I have argued whether the citations you supplied support the statements you have used them to support, which IMO they do not, and are not reliable sources. And I do believe you have a WP:NPOV problem yourself about articles that you associate with pseudoscience, to the point that you are inappropriately introducing arguments about the VALIDITY of an author's ideas into biographical articles about that author and the associated talk pages. If these were articles about The Stoned Ape Theory or Timewave Zero such debate might be appropriate, but an article about, say, Thomas Jefferson doesn't require a discussion as to whether democracy is a valid political theory with citations by people who think it isn't; that belongs in an article about democracy. This is particularly true if the citations introduced are from personal blogs or high school students, or don't say what you claim they say.Rosencomet (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"WP:NPOV has no relevance here at all" is an amazing statement. WP:NPOV applies to all articles; in particular, the following applies to all articles: "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included...See Wikipedia's established pseudoscience guidelines to help with deciding whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience." That is a link to WP:FRINGE/PS. See WP:PARITY regarding sources that may be used to critique fringe theories. vzaak 21:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are purposely misrepresenting what I am saying. 1. I meant that WP:NPOV has nothing to do with my edit in this case, since it is about the use of a high school student's essay as a source, and has nothing to do with my "point of view". 2. You keep ignoring that I have NOT argued or debated the issue of what is or isn't pseudoscience, but the validity of certain citations. STOP claiming that I need to review "whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience", since it has nothing to do with my edit. Also, nowhere in WP:PARITY or WP:NPOV will you find that a high school student's essay or a personal blog is an acceptable source. WP:PARITY DOES say this: "Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory." I also point out AGAIN that this is not an article about a fringe theory, it is an article about an AUTHOR. But go ahead, tell me to read it again, and pretend I have said things I have not said again. I stand by this: the citations I have criticized are improper and not reliable sources, they should be deleted, and the sentence containing quotes from the high school student's essay should be removed. If you claim THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY believes something, you need to cite some real indication that they DO, not just that a filmmaker THINKS they do. Instead of reversing that, IMO you should find better citations from actual scientists in the field. (And frankly, I don't think the Novelty Theory is science either, but MY point of view is irrelevant, too. I know a bad source when I see one.)Rosencomet (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You said to me, "you are misapplying WP:FRINGE/PS, and WP:NPOV has no relevance here at all". So the point about WP:FRINGE/PS applies to me, but the point about WP:NPOV doesn't? This is very confusing.

As I explained earlier, "novelty theory" is obvious pseudoscience, and Bruce is only telling us what is obvious. "Considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community" does not mean that a poll was conducted among all the scientists in the world. Why do you think it's not a reliable source?

Novelty theory isn't taken seriously by the scientific community, as indicated by a Google Scholar search. Scientia Review is the #1 and seemingly only relevant hit, with the rest being oriented around rave or drug or New Age culture. Scientia Review has more editorial oversight than McKenna's self-published ideas. Reliable sources are always context-dependent, and a Ph.D. isn't needed to lampoon novelty theory. That's where WP:PARITY comes in. Why do you think it's inappropriate for a critique? vzaak 00:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say it? 1. I think Bruce is not a scientist herself, nor is she quoting any reliable source when she makes her statement about what the scientific community considers about anything. She gives us no idea as to how she reached this conclusion. It is clearly an opinion, since she offers no source. 2. The material from Scientia Review is a HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT's essay, and not a reliable source from a scientist. From it's website: "The Scientia Review is an e-journal that publishes secondary school writings in STEM disciplines—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics." "Foremost, The Scientia Review emphasizes scientific and technical writing as an important skill and discipline for all secondary school students." I see nothing to support your assertion about its "editorial oversight". It may be featured because the Review thinks the student is creative, relative to his peers, or that the essay is well written, but I see no reason to accept it as a reliable source, and especially not the SOLE reliable source, and heavily quote it with the line "Novelty theory has been criticized for" in front of it. Criticized by who; a high school student? Why should that matter? You said it yourself; it is a LAMPOON of the theory, not a scientific analysis by a reliable source. I hate to say it, but I think you just like it because it says things you agree with; otherwise you would not repeatedly ignore my quite reasonable objections to it's use as a source. If I used a high school student's essay stating McKenna was a genius and Novelty Theory was a great achievement in the advancement of human knowledge, would you honestly accept it as a reliable source? If, AS YOU SAY, the ONLY "relevant hit" you can come up with is this high school student's essay, maybe the scientific community is not as uniform in it's regard as you think. Maybe this critique is insufficiently supported, if at ALL.Rosencomet (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thats not how Reliable sources work - we dont get to evaluate how they got to their conclusions, that up to the publishers. And it certainly doesnt take a genius or any type of exceptional source to know that when you ask scientists "If I make a graph based on the pictographs of the I-ching, and then make variations of that graph and place it on a timetable of history, when it shows the world is going to end in 2012 -is that science or pseudoscience?" what the answer from the scientific community is going to be. To suggest that would be anything other than P - S - U - E - D - O - S - C - I - E - N - C - E* is the WP:REDFLAG statement that would need exceptional sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

ok - the answers quite possibly would include quite a number of "GET OUT OF MY OFFICE", a smattering of "Huh?", quite a few "Are you on drugs?", and the occasional "That's not even wrong." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:PARITY clearly shows the validity of the source Vzaak seeks to use. That there are no publications in major journals (or essentially anywhere) that address the topic is 1) Evidence of rejection by scientific mainstream: 2) The reason clearly exlained in the policy cited for using the aforementioned reference. Regardless of where it occurs WP:FRINGE applies. An article about an individual that contains substantial explanation of the individuals ideas is an appropriate and neccessary place to present the mainstream consensus view relating to those ideas. As said before lack of publication in major (or even minor) journals of scientists evaluating, implementing or in any way seriously considering the ideas presented is strong and clear evidence that such ideas are pseudoscience (not to mention the failure of the world to end in 2012). To refer to the "for instance", if a priest were known for or if the article contained their ideas on the existence of god then the mainstream response and interpretation of those ideas would in fact belong in the article. Pseudoscience is a different matter (and each article should be considered individually) WP is clear on pseudoscience and this article falls under ArbCom decisions on pseudoscience. If the material concerning McKenna's ideas and theories is reduced to a several sentence mention, specifying the mainstream position would still be appropriate, as the material is lengthy and provides "justifications", rationale and explanation of development of these ideas, it is appropriate to describe clearly their pseudoscientific nature through criticism (like the source in question, as no journal has even considered his ideas seriously enough to publish material on them) and through clear and prominent presentation of the mainstream scientific view on the material McKenna's ideas deal with. Read WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY with some care and you will find they are very clear about presentation of fringe/pseudoscience material. The fact this material is in a biography does not negate these policies in any way. WP:DUE applies to all content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've changed the novelty theory criticism to use Normark instead, just because he gave more practical details. He's also an expert in archaeology and Mayan studies. vzaak 05:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

With regards to vzaak's recent changes to the opening paragraphs. It is my understanding from reading WP:PARITY that it is valid for criticising pseudoscientific theories/ideas not for general lampooning of the person in question. Therefore imo this blogs use in the novelty theory section or in relation to novelty theory in the opening paragraphs is appropriate. But not for general critisism of McKenna as a person. The criticisms are directly related to novelty theory and you already have that covered. Screamliner (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Also I think to claim that the quotes from RS in the opening paragraphs are "hagiographical views" is really over the top. Screamliner (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mention PARITY for opening paragraph. This is basic NPOV, where all significant points of view must be represented. Normack qualifies as an expert per WP:BLOGS and is able to make the assessment that McKenna is attempting to appear scientific when he is not. It's not appropriate to start the article with a flurry of laudatory quotes, lacking a critical outside perspective. If you have better sources for criticism then please introduce them. vzaak 21:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

With thanks to recent edits/effort. And specifically about the newly improved Stoned Apes paragraph - may I please cite the original, definitive 'better source'? "Concerning Terence McKenna's Stoned Apes" by B.P. Akers (http://realitysandwich.com/89329/terence_mckennas_stoned_apes/). Addressing a concern stated above, about source (S Woolfe) being "blog of a guy who works for a "libertarian-leaning magazine" in London ... Is he a member of the scientific community, or an authority on anthropology?": The author of the original article is a phd scientist. Accredited in both biology and anthropology. With peer reviewed research, published in journals of scientific societies - fields including ethnobotany and mycology. Note (as reflects) his research as cited in WP entries e.g. Psilocybe hispanica; Rock Art of the Iberian Mediterranean Basin; and Villar del Humo. Since its Mar 28, 2011 publication, info from "Concerning Terence McKenna's Stoned Apes" - has been copied/pasted by many, like Mr Woolfe, without due citation. As for this WP entry on Terence McKenna - my experience with it goes back to 2006. In view of that, and certain remarks above, may I note "Concerning ..." specifically cites WP's "entry for TM (which seemingly reflects ongoing tampering to keep a properly celebratory, uncritical tone)." I find that echoed above by vzaak (Jan 26) WP "has historically had problems with editors aiming to promote pseudoscience or lessen its criticism, which eventually lead to the arbitration case on pseudoscience." I question whether WP policy and practice is functionally sufficient to ensure WP purposes - against an 'inspired' determination of oppositional counter-purpose (TM hagiography). Whether appropriate edits here can stand against 'edit war' and subterfuge that's prevailed at this entry for years - is unclear considering, e.g.: "WP editors wish to minimize Terence's significance, so I think it's good not to let the bastards get away with this" (posted June 2, 2013, by ‘foxfire’ i.e. WP editor Peter Meyer: http://mckennaforum.com/forum/mckenna-forum-group1/terence-mckenna-forum-forum24/stoned-ape-theory-mckenna-shlain-hakim-bey-thread3.3/) Again thanks to vzaak and others (TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom). With concern even doubts for this entry; may be a lost cause. Past conscientious edits have been easy targets for zapping - unable to stand or endure against a doggedly determined proprietary interest of McKenna 'admirers' (believers, followers, what are they exactly?), acting as WP editors, in service to a charismatic icon's PR. Time will tell? Akersbp (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC) akersbp

The Watkins objection

This entire section is referenced only by self published original research. Has there been any discussion of this in RS? Pending comment I am going to remove this section and place it here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Watkins Objection

A British mathematician named Mathew Watkins saw a discrepancy in one of the steps in McKenna's process, where he took the first graph and reversed it. When he placed this reversed graph on top of the existing graph he aligned it in such a way that the "teeth" meshed. But they were not meshed exactly and this left little bits of the graph on both ends slightly misaligned with each other. Watkins decided to be more precise with this alignment. He aligned the reverse graph with the existing graph and let the numbers decide what happened. It wasn't visually pretty like McKenna's TimeWave, but it was mathematically sound.

The result is what has become known as the Watkins Objection, and while the resulting Time Wave pattern is only slightly different, a small difference can be quite significant when you are dealing with time on such a grand scale. While the significant dates remained the same, one thing that was discovered with the Watkins model is that the Time Wave has absolute novelty both at the beginning and the end of the wave. This suggests that there might be some cyclical nature to the wave, and time itself. For the standard model wave, it had been argued that the zero value at the end of the waveform implies some kind of singularity at the end of the process - or at the end of time. But Mathematician John Sheliak in his analysis of the time wave, suggest that what this revised wave was implying, however, is that there may be singularities at both ends of the continuum. This he argued could also suggest a closed system that may be undergoing some kind of cyclic renewal process - perhaps each cycle expressing ever higher ordered states of complex form, or Novelty where universes emerge from zero-point, or vacuum field, go through an evolutionary process, then perhaps return to zero-point field at the end of the cycle. This cycle may then repeat itself, possibly with increased complexity and Novelty.

McKenna was extremely pleased with Watkins and Sheliak’s interest and interpretations stating that: "I owe a real debt of gratitude to both Watkins and John Sheliak, but especially John. His work now makes explicit every stage in the construction of the timewave, any interested mathematician can now satisfy him or herself as to the precise details of the construction of the timewave…I am happy to admit my error in the construction of the wave. Novelty Theory can now mature into a genuine intellectual discipline in which we can hope to see the contributions made by many people exploring the field."

Refs

Moved from article for preservation. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added a new small section for the Watkins objection as it came up in a reliable secondary source I was editing from Screamliner (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting

Some puzzling reversions have happened regarding copyediting the article. The original was

He also formulated a concept about the nature of time, based on fractal patterns he claimed to have discovered in the I Ching, which he called novelty theory and which he believed predicted the end of time in the year 2012.

The first comma doesn't belong there, and the structure "which ... and which" is not very appealing. My version:

Using fractal patterns he claimed to have discovered in the I Ching, he formulated a concept about the nature of time he called "novelty theory", which he believed predicted the end of time in the year 2012.

An earlier variant of this change was also reverted. In the interest of making the text more "grown up", one shouldn't have too many sentences that start "<subject> <verb> ...". The next blip on my radar was

McKenna's hypothesis was, that low doses of psilocybin improves visual acuity; so the presence of psilocybin in the diet of early pack hunting primates caused the individuals who were consuming psilocybin mushrooms to be better hunters than those who were not.

Again, the first comma shouldn't be there. Also, the "so" clause should be connected to the hypothesis. My change:

McKenna's hypothesis was that low doses of psilocybin improves visual acuity and that the presence of psilocybin in the diet of early pack hunting primates caused the individuals who were consuming psilocybin mushrooms to be better hunters than those who were not.

This was claimed to have "grammatical errors",[4] but is there nothing wrong with that sentence. The new addition of a colon also seems awkward. Screamliner, I hope you don't take this in a mean way, and I apologize in advance, but are you a native English speaker? I've seen a couple Russians make similar use of commas in English, though that may just be coincidence. vzaak 16:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No ofence taken vzaak. Yes British English.

My reason for breaking it up how i did is due the fact that there are 3 main points to the hypothesis:

• 1. low doses of psilocybin improves visual acuity: (description of proposed impact)
• 2. slightly higher doses the mushroom acts to sexualy arouse: (description of proposed impact)
• 3. At even higher doses the mushroom would have acted to dissolve boundaries: (description of proposed impact)

With regards to the usage of commas, as far as I am aware, there are no definitive rules so yes whatever you think. My understanding is that they can be used in that context because "He also formulated a concept about the nature of time which he called novelty theory" is a complete sentence itself, therefore placing "based on fractal patterns he claimed to have discovered in the I Ching" within commas is appropriate. In your second example "McKenna's hypothesis was, that low doses of psilocybin improves visual acuity" I used it because it just felt like a natural pause and it is my understanding that a comma can be used for that purpose also.

Ok how about this?

Also using fractal patterns he claimed to have discovered in the I Ching, he formulated a concept about the nature of time which he called "novelty theory," believing it predicted the end of time in the year 2012.

I've changed this now to something similar I, think it should be okay. Screamliner (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Screamliner (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

btw I am not claiming to be an expert on grammar, so if the colons need removing that's fine. The grammatical errors I was referring too here [5] were my own. Screamliner (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have reworded it so hopefully will be okay now Screamliner (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2014

There is a minor spelling error in the following section:

When examining the King Wen sequence of the 64 hexagrams, McKenna noticed a pattern. He analysed the “degree of difference” between each successive hexagram and claims he found a statistical anomaly, which he believed suggested that, the Ken Wen sequence was an intentional construct. With the degrees of difference codified into numerical values, he worked out a mathematical wave form based on the 384 lines of change that make up the 64 hexagrams. McKenna was able to graph the data and this became the Novelty Time Wave.

In the second sentence, "the Ken Wen sequence was an intentional construct." should read "the King Wen sequence was an intentional construct."

72.37.248.33 (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

How is Terrence McKenna listed in the "religious skeptics" category?

Is it sufficient to be skeptical of one form of religion to be a religious skeptic? If that's the case, everyone is a religious skeptic. I don't think anyone reading this article or anything by McKenna could reasonably come to the conclusion that he was a skeptic of religion generally, given that he was into all sorts of fringe religious ideas such as modern shamanism. 2601:4:B80:572:80A0:155F:F214:65B6 (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about removing this as he was very sceptical of all organised and institutional religion and spoke out against it on many occasions. I guess it depends on how narrowly you want to define 'Religious Skepticism' and judging by the defiition on wikipedia I think placing him in the catagory is probably valid. This needs consensus before the category can be removed Screamliner (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Machine Elf

Can someone fix the link in the article at Machine Elf so it point to the redirect page machine elves as per wp:redirect. Thank you.83.100.174.82 (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

fixed Machine Elf now redirects to Terence McKenna#Machine elves Screamliner (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Promotion and expansion of novelty theory in the lead

These recent edits give undue weight on novelty theory while misrepresenting the level of acceptance per WP:FRINGELEVEL. Possibly novelty theory can be expanded in the lead a little bit, but if this entails adding claims then criticism would need to be expanded as well. For instance one can't say novelty theory predicted the Mayan calendar date without also mentioning that McKenna actually adjusted the date to coincide with the Mayan calendar, as pointed out in the article body. Manul ~ talk 12:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

terence mckenna is an anthropologist

https://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/mckenna_terence/mckenna_terence_interview_sfchron.shtml

terence mckenna is an anthropologist

i make the statement above- website run by goons- because wikipedia has taken down any serious discussions being held about finding the truth about the world we see. by editing jim fetzers biography page, this website has lost all credibility it once feigned.

terence mckenna is an anthropologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.39.145 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015

Terence McKenna is an anthropologist, your description does not note that of him. The whole foundation of his bank of knowledge is based upon anthropology. Anthropology is a multi-disciplined approach to the human world created within the bounds of nature on this planet. It is a fascinating subject and gives great insight to our world, and is a subject which I earned a degree in. The least you can do for those interested in this man's message, an important message as it is, is to list him as an anthropologist, long before you list him as a 'psychonaut' in your introduction of him.

"Terence McKenna is an American anthropologist, ethnobotanist," etc etc.

https://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/mckenna_terence/mckenna_terence_interview_sfchron.shtml

71.13.39.145 (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You will need to provide a verifiable and reliably published source that supports such analysis -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

terence mckenna is an anthropologist

listen to any lecture available by him- he's an anthropologist. it is implicit in living with and studying indigenous people and shamanism that you are an anthropologist. you don't undertake such a task without being an anthropologist, thats what being an anthropologist is.

wikipedia is a biased joke clearly run by goons. reliably published sources don't exist on this man. listen to his work, what more of a source would you like..? listen to his own speech, or is he lying about his whole spiel. get real. how about his book "Food of the Gods", look at his analysis of human history explained via relationship with psychotropic plants. That is the work of an anthropologist.

https://archive.org/details/PsychedeliaRawArchivesOfTerenceMckennaTalks

Im not going to cite some reliably published source because a) thats subjective on your end b) 'reliably' published write ups are often biased, just like this wiki entry on the man is biased c) you should be open minded enough / familiar enough (if moderating) to be familiar with his material, listen to it and tell me hes not an anthropologist!

jokepedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.39.145 (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If you don't understand or like how things work here, you are welcome to find some other place to contribute. If you have something constructive to add, do so. If you have any intention of actually engaging people here, you should consider changing your tone. Ranting and being insulting is pointless and a waste of everyone's time. -- DaveSeidel (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I am stating that the among the list of titles in the brief description of this man at the beginning of the article, it should state that he is an anthropologist, since that what his approach emcompasses- an anthropological viewpoint. His other merits of living with ethnic indigenous folks should be another clue of this oversight on yours' part. It is important in the sense that interested parties should be directed towards possible fields of interest which would potentially contribute to further knowledge enhancement. Terence McKenna is an anthropologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.39.145 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

https://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/mckenna_terence/mckenna_terence_interview_sfchron.shtml

Terence McKenna is an anthropologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.39.145 (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Aztec culture

Adjectives are traps and easy-exits for written works. The adjective "horrendous" is not needed. Please, remove it. HF--186.125.125.211 (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)--186.125.125.211 (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Screamliner (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2015

"they engaged in acts of aggression" Adjectives are akin to weasel words. They ornament the article, provide next to nothing in this case and are completely opposite to the idea of academic objectivity. Please remove "horrendous". The article (and act mentioned) is clear enough without the need for sensationalist shock-factor words186.125.125.211 (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Screamliner (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Terence McKenna is not a philosopher

A philosopher in the last hundred years is someone who is so employed. By a philosophy department, for example. McKenna was never so employed.

jps (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have respectfully reverted your bold edit again and you should seek consensus through discussion as per WP:BRD before you re-edit. You should not keep re-editing content without any real discussion and the onus is on you to receive concensus. With regards to McKenna being correctly classified as a philosopher if you look through the talk archives this has already been discussed and consensus was achieved. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terence_McKenna/Archive_2#Terence_McKenna_is_properly_described_as_an_ethnobotanist and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terence_McKenna/Archive_2#Philosopher To suggest that you need to have been "employed by a philosophy department" is just reducing the term philosopher to apply only to a modern western academic interpretation, which is a false premise. Screamliner (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You need an independent source (not a follower) who so identifies him. Do you have one? We need to verify every point being made here. Previous discussions seem to have missed this important point. Since the claim that he is a philosopher is not sourced, it needs to be removed until you show us some sources that indicate he is a philosopher. jps (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell WP:FRIND is related to 'fringe theories' and is therefore irrelevant in this discussion, however here is a link from an independent website referring to him as a philosopher http://realitysandwich.com/100717/terence_mckennas_last_trip/ The article is written by Erik Davis who meets WP:RS and if people want to contest Reality Sandwich as a WP:RS then I think this article should still be covered under WP:UGC Screamliner (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The source is rather weak and the support for the content in the source even weaker. Davis calls McKenna "The psychedelic philosopher and mushroom advocate Terence McKenna" and later, "the psychedelic bard Terence McKenna". A characterization as a "psychedelic philosopher" is not documentation of an significant contribution or involvement in philosophy that supports stating McKenna was a philosopher. Professional recognition or academic analysis of McKenna's activities as philosophy are what would be required. The single casual use of the word is not adequate support, many lower quality sources toss the term around, an encyclopedia does not state a person is a philosopher unless relevant sources document that that person worked as, contributed or was considered in the field as a philosopher. A "psychedelic philosopher is certainly WP:FRINGE. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

"McKenna was less a scientist or even philosopher than a performance artist or jester, and I mean that as a compliment." John Horgan. June 6, 2012. Was Psychedelic Guru Terence McKenna Goofing About 2012 Prophecy? "Cross Check" Scientific American. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the realitysandwich article is not really what one would want to identify someone as a philosopher. I don't think the sources we have agree that he is a philosopher, per se. jps (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi MrBill3 hope you are well, and Hi jps. These are my thoughts on the issue: I fundamentally disagree with such a limited definition of the word Philosopher a view which has been expressed by many others here in the past (see the above talk page discussion links) I mean can academia just hijack words? Even wiki's own definition is nowhere near this strict: "A philosopher, in a broad sense, is someone who studies philosophy" "In the classical sense, a philosopher is someone who lives according to a way of life, whose focus is upon resolving existential questions about the human condition" "Non-academic philosophers can employ their skills in a great number of other careers, such as medicine, bioethics, business, publishing, free-lance writing, media, and law." and if his many many lectures don't fall under the definition of philosophy I don't know what you would class them as! But perhaps I am at odds with policy. Why would John Horgan even identify him as a potential philosopher if it weren't a label readily applied to him? and I'm still not sure how any of this discussion falls under 'fringe theories' but i guess that is a side issue. Anyway I don't have the energy to contest this so if no one else has anything to say just remove it, or maybe wait to see if a broader consensus can be met, thats all I have to say on the issue though Screamliner (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, MrBill3, jps, and Screamliner. I think the idea that Terence McKenna was not a philosopher is based on academic prejudice and unwarranted skepticism (likely due to McKenna's controversial association with fringe culture and psychedelics). However, as Peter Meyer rightly pointed out in the original talk thread from March 2013, many canonical figures in the West and the East cannot be categorized using the narrow nomenclature of institutional philosophy or the rigid professional definition being offered here, and yet they are still dignified with the title 'philosopher'. Who precisely is to serve as an 'independent source' to arbitrate the decision? Many analytic philosophers refuse to accept Continental philosophers as true philosophers, and vice versa. There are also many in the public who attribute the word philosophy to all-things esoteric. In either case you will have a diversity of opinions about McKenna's philosophical pedigree. In my view, the only relevant criteria in this situation is definitional. As Screamliner argued, the definition should be sufficiently nuanced to encompass many competing perspectives. We know McKenna studied philosophy extensively. "I think of myself as a sort of a Whiteheadian Platonist” - The Archaic Revival. He draws heavily from the Hermetic mysticism of the German idealists in the vein of Jakob_Böhme, Friedrich Schelling, and G. W. F. Hegel. His favorite philosopher was Heraclitus. These sources played a significant role in how he approached his notions of the perfection of matter and consciousness through time and his pursuit of enlightenment through inner exploration and existential struggle with a dominator culture, all of which is part of the philosophical heritage. There are countless other examples of such influences. McKenna not only learned about philosophy. He also expressed a definite philosophical vision and way of life through his live discussions, books, and seminars. Practically everything this man did involved questioning common assumptions and offering original insights into the human condition. Classically, this is what philosophers have always done. There is no contradiction and no reason to be offended. McKenna was both a trippy pseudo-scientific mushroom prophet AND a deeply mystical philosopher and religious poet. He was many things to many people. I see no reason why this shouldn't be reflected in the article. I claim the title "esoteric philosopher" is neutral enough to serve as a more accurate representation of who McKenna was and what he believed in. I would appreciate if you all achieve consensus and resolve this issue once and for all. Till then, I'll leave the article unedited.

Pushing forward the edit for "esoteric philosopher" --Aliensyntax (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, material needs to be verifiable and contain no original research. Inserting "esoteric philosopher" without a corresponding source goes against these policies. Manul ~ talk 04:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Academia does hijack terminology. It's kinda what it does. It routinizes an idea that hasn't been studied and makes it rigorous. The reason that I think it important that we stick to sourcing as our primary means of identification is because to do otherwise would be a free-for-all. Many people have studied philosophy and, arguably, anyone reading a page on Wikipedia that is remotely related to the subject is "studying philosophy". But to label someone a philosopher, we need to consider what reliable sources call them. McKenna was someone who speculated on various ideas. He was certainly a psychonaut. But philosophy is a subject that is seriously studied and requires confirmation. Not just anyone can be a philosopher.

This isn't to say that it is impossible for amateurs to become philosophers. Only that we have to have sources which so acknowledge it. If sources qualify the term it seems to me that we'll just end up with meaningless commentary. Think about what best serves the readers: a casual reader would expect that a philosopher was somehow engaged in the act of studying philosophy which, for better or worse, these days takes place primarily in academia. The exceptions to that general rule should be well-sourced. jps (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think Reality Sandwich can be used as a source anyway, despite this being a BDP rather than a BLP. The argument for WP:UGC isn't very convincing either, since the claim being made is controversial. Manul ~ talk 19:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

So I thought that looking at Dewy decimal classification might help here. So far I have found one book listed in the 600 category..ttecnology pharmacology.. Not the 100s which would include Philosophy. If any of his cataloged writing or material has been filed as Philosophy I think it would work.2601:C:6783:6A01:408E:125C:2EB6:4CFA (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

McKenna is refered to as a Philosopher in this article from The Telegraph "Another magic mushroom hypothesis, put forward by American philosopher and pyschonaut Terrence McKenna, proposes that mushrooms were crucial in the evolution of humanity" Surely this meets WP:RS and verifiable? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/11289904/Eight-things-you-didnt-know-about-magic-mushrooms.html Screamliner (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead with the edit as no one has commented further re the telegraph reference above Screamliner (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This was ill-advised. It is likely that The Telegraph was telegraphing the previous Wikipedia article since it uses the exact order of the previous wording. A gardening section is not a reliable means to delineate who is or isn't a philosopher. I'm going ahead and reverting on that basis. jps (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2015

"rather" not "rarther"

"when the mathematics was accurately calculated" - mathematics cannot be calculated!

95.144.112.221 (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Theories, beliefs, ideas, and pseudoscience

belief |bɪˈliːf| noun 1 an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: his belief in extraterrestrial life | [ with clause ] : a belief that climate can be modified beneficially. • something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion: we're prepared to fight for our beliefs | [ mass noun ] : contrary to popular belief existing safety regulations were adequate. • a religious conviction: Christian beliefs | [ mass noun ] : the medieval system of fervent religious belief. 2 (belief in) trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something): a belief in democratic politics.

theory |ˈθɪəri| noun (pl.theories) a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: Darwin's theory of evolution. • a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: a theory of education | [ mass noun ] : music theory. • an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action: my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged. • Mathematics a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

theoretical |θɪəˈrɛtɪk(ə)l| adjective concerned with or involving the theory of a subject or area of study rather than its practical application: a theoretical physicist | the training is practical rather than theoretical. • based on or calculated through theory rather than experience or practice: the theoretical value of their work.

I have reverted some of the recent edits made to the lead for the following reasons:

McKenna had a theory or hypothesis on the origins of human consciousness as outlined in multiple sources through out the article. He spoke about his theory and other alternate theories on the issue at length throughout his career and therefore "He spoke and wrote about a variety of subjects, including...the theoretical origins of human consciousness." not only is perfectly legitimate in the lead of the article, it is also more accurate than "He spoke and wrote about a variety of subjects, including...his beliefs about the origins of human consciousness." If it really needs changing I propose it could be changed it to "He spoke and wrote about a variety of subjects, including...the hypothetical origins of human consciousness." If that is really more preferable? but personally I think it is perfectly fine as is.

In regards to the other edit "McKenna formulated a pseudoscientific proposal about the nature of time." McKenna did not "formulate a pseudoscientific proposal" what ever that even means? I would like someone to provide a source as to where McKenna ever claims novelty theory is science/scientific, but regardless of that fact he put forward his concept/theory/idea on the nature of time which others have critisized as been considered to be pseudoscience. The original wording "McKenna formulated a concept about the nature of time based on fractal patterns he claimed to have discovered in the I Ching, which he called novelty theory, proposing this predicted the end of time in the year 2012. His promotion of novelty theory and its connection to the Mayan calendar is credited as one of the factors leading to the widespread beliefs about 2012 eschatology. Novelty theory is considered pseudoscience." (putting aside the potential issue of the last sentence been 'in the voice of wikipedia') echoed this just about fairly, clearly and in line with WP:NPOV. However the new wording distorted this. Screamliner (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Misinformation in critisism of 'Stoned Ape' Theory of evolution

I have a copy of the study Fischer et al - Psilocybin-induced contraction of nearby visual space and there is misinformation/disinformation in the critisism of 'Stoned Ape' Theory of evolution from the blog by Sam Wolf ref 82

1. At no point, as the current article implies, does it conclude "that psilocybin may not be conducive to the survival of the organism"

2. As far as I can tell from reading the full study visual acuity measurements were part of the process: 'After the administration of 160 ~g/kg psilocybin. The manifest aniseikonia of each of the subjects was measured using his maximum visual acuity correction' There conclusion is there is a 'drug-induced enlargement of nearby visual space' and an 'enlargement of handwriting area' and 'Drug-induced contraction of nearby visual space was inferred from changes of AFP curvature and tilt, as well as from increased handwriting area at drug peak. The 'rising horizon' (Rennert) in the drawings of schizophrenics is also considered a manifestation of the contraction of visual space and is described in terms of an arousal-dependent trans- formation of constancies.' The enlargement of nearby space was a point McKenna drew on frequently by joking about them been like molecular binoculars which would aid in the foraging of food.

3. They were given doses of 160ug/kg or 0.16mg/kg which could easily be considered as a low does. Paul Stamets, in Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World , reports that a "manageable dose" of psilocybin/psilocin would be around 0.25 milligrams per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg) and a high dose to be 0.5 mg/kg. A low dose is probably around 0.125 mg/kg."

So to summarise McKenna's use of the word 'improve' in "low doses of psilocybin improve visual acuity" could be criticised. But to state "His ideas regarding psilocybin and visual acuity have been criticized for lacking evidence and for misrepresenting Fischer et al., who studied medium doses (not low doses) of psilocybin and found that perception (but not visual acuity) was altered." and "that psilocybin may not be conducive to the survival of the organism" as the article currently states is not true. Screamliner (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the Wolf article was about the only independent assessment of the stoned ape theory out there, and it was only permitted via WP:PARITY. Analysis by Wikipedia editors can't be included in the article. Do you know of any other WP:FRIND sources? If we can't find a suitable one, then the stoned ape section should be removed per FRIND. Manul ~ talk 13:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Manul I don't fully understand your point. The 'Stoned ape' theory section is built on numerous independent reliable sources, 2 of which which are analytical and critical of the theory and that critisism is included. Also I am not contesting all of the points from Wolf's blog. I appreciate analysis by Wikipedia editors can't be included in the article and I am no expert in analysing scientific papers anyway. There is another source I know of which is a 'cirtical analysis' http://realitysandwich.com/89329/terence_mckennas_stoned_apes/ and while this source takes on a fairly ad hominem approach in sections there is some relevent critisism to be pulled from it. It appears the 1st point I brought up above "that psilocybin may not be conducive to the survival of the organism" was from a seperate study according to this new source so that should probably be made clear in the wikipedia article. In regards to my 2nd point about visual acuity, this: "they published studies about visual perception — perception, not acuity — as affected by psilocybin, in terms of various specific parameters. Not visual acuity." is taken from the new source and this information should be included as the study was not specifically about visual acuity, although it appears visual acuity measurments were involved in the testing. I think my 3rd point, the specific point about fischer et al. studying "medium doses (not low doses)" should be removed altogether as it is demonstrably false.

I think using the new source the opening of the critisim should be changed to this (the rest can stay as is):

McKenna's "stoned ape" theory has not received attention from the scientific community and has been criticized for a relative lack of citation to any of the paleoanthropological evidence informing our understanding of human origins. His ideas regarding psilocybin and visual acuity have been criticized by suggesting he misrepresented Fischer et al., who published studies about visual perception in terms of various specific parameters, not acuity. Criticism has also been expressed due to the fact that in a separate study on psilocybin induced transformation of visual space Fischer et al. stated that psilocybin "may not be conducive to the survival of the organism".

I have added the new source and made the changes. Screamliner (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

To editors concerned with factual accuracy of this article. I note on objection a misleading assertion by editor Screamliner (Aug 12 2015) - posed as justification for a 'partisan' edit. I speak as not only PhD biologist, but author of the article from which the 'damaging' info was edited away, on false pretext asserted thus: <the specific point about fischer et al. studying "medium doses (not low doses)" should be removed altogether as it is demonstrably false. >

In ironic fashion, that claim is itself glaringly untrue, as can be easily shown. The 'demonstrable falsity' resides in that very assertion, as I find. The relevant facts clearly show the truth. As cited to valid sources, they are simple - and twofold:

1) The dose used in Fischer et al.'s studies of psilocybin and visual perception - was 160 µg/kg. I don't see anyone disputing that (how could they, on what grounds?)

2) In unvarnished reality, 160 µg/kg is nowhere not a low dose. Its between a medium and high dose of psilocybin. Source: Wackermann J, et al., 2008. Effects of varied doses of psilocybin … Neuroscience Newsletters 345: 51-55:

12 µg/kg = Very Low Dose 115 µg/kg = Medium Dose 250 µg/kg = High Dose

Such a simple fact as dosage - reflects in valid research sources, competently cited. Empty assertions, trying to contradict or confound the fact - are for other purposes. This is posted for information purposes. I would not care to 'go back and forth' about the fact, only note it being contradicted. And post simple source, to mere facts - of Fischer et alia's research dose, and psilocybin dosage range as well known scientifically. To conscientious editors in attendance, I submit question - just what truth, what fact as relates - is 'demonstrably false'? Thank you B.P. Akers, PhD (biologist / author) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akersbp (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"'Partisan' edit" - Please refrain from making defamatory accusations against the integrity of my editing.

1. Your article was the source I added to the article and from which the new information was taken. The article from which you claim "the 'damaging' info was edited away," was a blog by Sam Wolfe, so unless you are both Sam Wolfe and B.P. Akers you are mistaken in your assertions.

2. You state I made "Empty assertions, trying to contradict or confound the fact", yet I provided a link to mycologist Paul Statments definitions on dosage. I own the book this is taken from so will verify the statment, but it appears the definition of dose level is a contentious issue so should not be included, especially when the only source cited in the article claiming this comes from a random blog by Sam Wolfe. I can't recall the claimed doesage isssue been brought up in your article, although I may be wrong. But even if it is Paul Statments is one of the worlds leading mycologists. Screamliner (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

To this 'screamlining' voice: Reply to fraudulent request (punctuated "please") denied, for being staked out on false and misleading accusation (yours) - pretentiously protesting your 'integrity' of your editing - which is glaring in its falsity, of both fact and underlying motive. I observe clear intent in 'service' to St Terence, on your reverent part - to obfuscate facts, distort the issue of citation, manipulate and defy simple facts as demonstrable in evidence, and citable. Here's two among egregious deceptions I find you've had the audacity to screamline, blatantly as can be:

1 - Re the Fischer quote "that psilocybin may not be conducive to the survival of the organism" - you falsely claim someone. Sam Wolfe [sic] - cited it to 'Transformation of Nearby Visual Space ...' He did nothing of the sort, as anyone reading his essay can see. Seeing how you played that for staged rebuttal in some high-handed 'refutation' theatrics - doesn't scramble the issue (nice try though). You're the only one who claimed (for your own ulterior "rebuttal" motive - that somebody else mistakenly cited that quote to 'Transformation of ..."

      Fischer et al published over a dozen articles from their research on psilocybin and visual perception. That the Clever Mr Mackie exploited only one to misrepresent and falsify for purposes of his 'heightened visual acuity' ruse - doesn't alter the fact.  Neither does your diversionary crybabying about pointing your fickle finger toward Sam Wolfe [sic] - AS IF he ever made such citation claim - as you've put in his mouth like your the ventriloquist and he's your dummy.  Just like McKenna put his own words into Fischer & Hill's mouths - its called 'ways and means' - part of a Modus Operandi of stealth deceit and covert manipulation.
    The Fischer quote you've dramatized about (with blatant dishonesty) is accurately cited in a piece you can't deny having read, having laid down certain cards - CONCERNING TERENCE MCKENNA'S STONED APES. Its from R. Fischer & R.M. Hill, "Induction and Extinction of Psilocybin Induced Transformation of Visual Space" (Pharmakopsychiat. 6: 258-263): "Psilocybin … consistently increases the natural misjudgment of the AVV." (Apparent Vertical Visual) "At its worst, such disorientation may be compared to a 'jammed computer' state, a condition which MAY NOT BE CONDUCIVE TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE ORGANISM" (p. 263 - caps added for emphasis).
     I'd love to see you say Oh, you didn't know - as if to correct yourself, like someone with editorial "integrity" (chuckle).  Faced with accurate citation in context of fact (that despite your theater, nowhere did Sam Wolfe [sic] or anyone else - cite that to 'Transformation of ..." you have no such recourse, by your motive.  You've left yourself no exit, no ground to stand on - for affecting an alibi.  If I'm wrong - prove it, let's hear it - "wow ... didn't know that."  Fat chance, you don't have it in you - you got denial and defiance, 'standard operating procedures' - power struggle, obfuscation.  All tactics you display and exercise by demonstration - accusation and calumny, trying to dispel the facts you can't wish away - and if possible, turn issue around by seizing offensive - and keep yourself off the ropes.  And for all your trouble, such an effort - there you are under microscope, dodging and defying - and so self-righteously indignant.  
     You oughta be disaccounted by WP admin, in my opinion.  Full of falsity top to bottom - you can't correct errors you've deliberately perpetrated - it'd be a conflict of motive for you.  In view of the bottomless dishonesty of your 'talking points' - and their transparent nature as diversionary obfuscation - complete lacking integrity - you can only tout them and hold them above correction, defy and deny.  I can only consider you're in contempt of WP policy and practice, both, as you've played it.  And in the process I think you've got yourself cornered - left yourself no means, no alibi within reach to try and protest some semblance of innocence - e.g. "oops, honest mistake" on your part.  Unless you care to prove that wrong (when you've neither intention nor capability to) - your show of grim determination, and defiance, refusal to be honest or even credible - a 200 proof distilled lack of integrity that glares in your theater.

2 - your talk about "it appears the definition of dose level is a contentious issue" - comes off as standard operating procedure in the McKult - defensive and desperately trying to mitigate damage - fallout of McKenna's fatuous claim Fischer et al discovered psilocybin causes 'enhanced visual acuity' ... 'in small doses.' That they didn't even study 'small dose' effects is but one among myriad fabrications about their research, As Told By Terence (the hero). Psilocybin's range of activity isn't some controversy - despite 'level best' attempts to controvert. Its well known in competent context, long established in scientific research lit. What do you go up against all that with? Why, you wave a popular 'magic mushroom hunters' field guide by the notorious Paul Statments [sic]. As if that's some peer-reviewed publication, with any validity. As if there's no scientific research spanning decades, that has long since established psilocybin's activity and dosage range - truthfully and factually. Either that or else you know and are well aware, au contraire - that there is a wealth of primary literature about dosage range of psilocybin - but what it actually says is nothing you want it to.

      The facts about psilocybin dosage range are - (1) well known and widely reported; and (2) anathema to your storyline desperately trying to do CPR on Terence's Tall Tale - which as a tissue of lies from the gitgo - was never even alive in the first place.  By strategy you display it appears you realize you can't undo the fact of Fischer's 160 µg/kg dose.  The numbers are too 'out of the bag.'  You're running out of aces. And the only recourse you have left for vainly trying to rescue the 'visual acuity' ('discovered by Fischer') fraud - is to somehow dramatize 160 µg/kg - as if it were a 'small doss of psilocybin' ("possibly" ?).   That goes up against primary research articles that pose menace to such a ruse - all you can do is avoid the primary lit on psilocybin's dosage range like the plague - desperately clinging to commercial fluff for the peasantry, citing popular 'hallelujah' pubs like that mass market book by Statments [sic] - as if it were the authoritative source on such a subject. 
      The highest dose of psilocybin that's ever been designated 'Low' - in any primary research source - is 100 µg/kg.   Maybe you'd like to argue 160 is, or perhaps 'seems to you, far as you can tell' (for extra ambiguity), or - if you "remember correctly" (throw in a bunch of that type tripe) - 'actually a lower number' than 100?   Akersbp (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC) akersbp

Akersbp you are in violation of WP:PA and have made so many blatantly false accusations against me, my character, and my editing, while completely twisting the statments I have made. It seems as if your perverse and unjustifiable anger is blinding your ability to read what I have actually written in this talk page discussion! I will not converse with you any further after this, unless you can communicate in a reasonable and respectful mannor.

To address your points:

Point 1. I was referring to the Wikipedia article! Not Wolf's blog, how you confused this fact is unclear to me, it was the Wikipedia article at the time which implied it see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terence_McKenna&diff=675560114&oldid=prev#.22Stoned_ape.22_theory_of_human_evolution

Point 2. I stand by what I said above. Wikipedia is based on information from reliable sources, you've brought no new sources to the table to outline your point, and whether you like it or not Paul Statments and his published works meet that criteria.

And just to be clear approximately 40% of "The Stoned Ape" criticism was added to the article by me, 20% of the "Novelty Theory" criticism was added by me, the entire "Watkins Objection" sub section which is critical of the mathmatics underpinning the time wave was added by me. I am even the editor who found and added your hyper-critical reality sandwich article as a source to the wikipedia article!!

Screamliner (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)