>> Why over complicate it by trying to “extract” the psilocybin instead of treating it like marijuana and growing the mushrooms in highly controlled settings and then testing for potency?!
> There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin.
True. However, are these negative side effects significant enough that purified psilocybin is a necessity, in all cases?
If so, what are these negative side effects, and is there significant net evidence (that includes degree of ~harm) sufficient to form a strong conclusion that purified psilocybin is a necessity, that does not also include personal opinions/judgements of persons other than an informed patient?
> Dosage is important.
Sure, to a degree.
However, is there sufficient net evidence that dosage precision (above that which can be achieved via simpler approaches) necessitates the usage of purified psilocybin?
If so, can you link this evidence?
> There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose.
See above.
> Argument fallacies:
> * your anecdotal positive experiences
When dealing with compounds whose effects are extremely phenomenological and inconsistent/variable between applications, anecdotal experiences seem not only valid, but mandatory for proper scientific study.
> * suggesting superiority because something is "from nature"
Framing advocacy for traditional, simple, affordable, and well-tested approaches as ~"illogical appeals to nature" is also a fallacy, and can be worse. (Not saying you're personally doing this, just as you aren't accusing anyone in particular for the fallacies you have listed).
> * referring to "mistakes from the past" without naming any
Perfectly fine. But let's not pretend all sides in debates aren't often guilty of this sort of behavior.
> * suggesting superiority that "has been (done) for thousands of years"
Implying that a long track record of success is irrelevant is also a fallacy, as is framing a reference to this track record as "fallacious".
> Think about why these kinds of arguments are made on different topics which you disagree with and then rethink why you are making them here.
I would suggest you rethink whether that accusation is objectively true, based on the literal words written, as opposed to your subconscious mind's interpretation of the words.
I would also suggest you rethink the quality and validity of your ~rejection of the parent's relatively innocuous suggestion, and also contemplate whether this level of thinking and discourse is appropriate for the gravity of the topic being discussed, and consistent with the principles of objective rationality and truthfulness this forum proclaims to uphold.
> There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin.
True. However, are these negative side effects significant enough that purified psilocybin is a necessity, in all cases?
If so, what are these negative side effects, and is there significant net evidence (that includes degree of ~harm) sufficient to form a strong conclusion that purified psilocybin is a necessity, that does not also include personal opinions/judgements of persons other than an informed patient?
> Dosage is important.
Sure, to a degree.
However, is there sufficient net evidence that dosage precision (above that which can be achieved via simpler approaches) necessitates the usage of purified psilocybin?
If so, can you link this evidence?
> There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose.
See above.
> Argument fallacies:
> * your anecdotal positive experiences
When dealing with compounds whose effects are extremely phenomenological and inconsistent/variable between applications, anecdotal experiences seem not only valid, but mandatory for proper scientific study.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_experience#Basic_p...
> * suggesting superiority because something is "from nature"
Framing advocacy for traditional, simple, affordable, and well-tested approaches as ~"illogical appeals to nature" is also a fallacy, and can be worse. (Not saying you're personally doing this, just as you aren't accusing anyone in particular for the fallacies you have listed).
> * referring to "mistakes from the past" without naming any
Perfectly fine. But let's not pretend all sides in debates aren't often guilty of this sort of behavior.
> * suggesting superiority that "has been (done) for thousands of years"
Implying that a long track record of success is irrelevant is also a fallacy, as is framing a reference to this track record as "fallacious".
> Think about why these kinds of arguments are made on different topics which you disagree with and then rethink why you are making them here.
I would suggest you rethink whether that accusation is objectively true, based on the literal words written, as opposed to your subconscious mind's interpretation of the words.
I would also suggest you rethink the quality and validity of your ~rejection of the parent's relatively innocuous suggestion, and also contemplate whether this level of thinking and discourse is appropriate for the gravity of the topic being discussed, and consistent with the principles of objective rationality and truthfulness this forum proclaims to uphold.