

Revision and Revisioning of Psychology by Stanislav Grof - davidtanner
http://www.gaiamedia.org/english/2012/09/25/revision-and-revisioning-of-psychology/

======
lutusp
A typical, modern psychology research paper. After over 14,000 words, Doctor
Grof concludes thus: "In my present understanding, archetypal astrology is the
long-sought Rosetta stone of consciousness research ..."

So astrology is the answer? If I were a psychologist, I would ask Doctor Grof
not to be on my side.

~~~
davidtanner
Well have you ever independently verified any of his claims through your own
experiential work? You might be (less) skeptical had you done so, although
healthy skepticism is never a bad thing. I guess you missed the part where
Grof said he was a materialist monoist Freudian prior to the use of
therapeutic LSD in his practice.

It was experiential evidence that caused Grof to revise his views of the world
- what makes you change your mind?

~~~
lutusp
> Well have you ever independently verified any of his claims through your own
> experiential work?

Let's say that I believe Bigfoot exists. Have you ever independently falsified
my belief yourself, personally? No? Then you have failed to meet your burden
of evidence and Bigfoot really does exist.

What is wrong with the above claim? Apart from unfairly shifting the burden of
evidence, the problem is that it contradicts the central posture of science
toward evidence -- the _null hypothesis_ , the precept that an idea is
_assumed to be false in the absence of positive evidence_.

Using the null hypothesis as a logical basis, Grof's claims have no meaning
until they are supported by positive scientific evidence (not merely the
absence of contradicting evidence).

Without the null hypothesis, anything anyone cares to assert is accepted as
true. I say that Bigfoot exists, and because you cannot disprove my claim by
looking under every rock in the universe, my claim is true. The problem with
my claim and posture is that disproof would require _proof of a negative_ , an
impossible evidentiary burden, for reasons given here:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot>

A quote: "Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic
teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell
(1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a
person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the
burden of proof to others ..."

> I guess you missed the part where Grof said he was a materialist monoist
> Freudian prior to the use of therapeutic LSD in his practice.

Oh, well, that makes it all right then. I'm glad you cleared that up.

Meanwhile, on Planet Earth, to assert the central role of astrology in human
affairs _requires evidence_.

> It was experiential evidence ...

"Experiential evidence" is not evidence, it is anecdote. Calling this
"experiential evidence" is to string together terms that contradict each
other.

> ... that caused Grof to revise his views of the world - what makes you
> change your mind?

The other kind of evidence -- the real kind. The kind of evidence on which two
or more independent, dispassionate observers can agree. The kind of evidence
that favors vaccines over dried gourds and witch doctors. The kind of evidence
that dispassionately falsifies racism and sexism. The kind of evidence that
keeps Creationism out of public classrooms.

Science is not merely a set of rules for identifying and processing evidence,
for crafting and testing theories. It is also a way to undermine some really
stupid ideas that appear spontaneously from time to time. Ideas like
astrology.

~~~
davidtanner
I don't wish for anything I say to be read in a harsh or trollish tone. I
really want to engage in a productive dialog.

I'll start from the top down with your post and explain how I feel and think:

Well I don't think Bigfoot exists either. But falsifying that claim would
require very careful investigation of the whole Maine landscape(or wherever
Bigfoot supposedly lives). In contrast, you could investigate your mind by
taking high doses of
tryptamines([http://countyourculture.com/2012/03/10/n-alkylated-
tryptamin...](http://countyourculture.com/2012/03/10/n-alkylated-
tryptamines/)) in a safe space and seeing if your experiences jived with
anything Grof claims, or not. By the way the above url is very focused on
quantitative information and the chemistry of some psychoactive compounds - no
woo there don't worry. So Bigfoot is not a good analogy because investigating
Grof's claims is an obtainable goal, not an impossibility.

I don't intend this to come off as snarky or rude, but I've been reading
rationality literature myself for many years. Dawkins, Dennett, Russel, some
Hume, LessWrong, etc. I've actually used Russell's teapot myself as a
conceptual metaphor while arguing with naive religious people. I'm also a math
major so I'm not exactly immune to logical thought. So please hear me out.

It seems like you are being triggered by the word astrology, this is very
understandable and I normally associate astrology with bullshit myself. Let me
shift my attention to some of the other things you wrote about experiential
evidence.

Here is my take on experiential evidence. All evidence is experiential in the
sense that we must use our sensory organs to use any machine or observe the
world 'directly' but of course we really experience only what our brains
construe from sensory bombardment of light, sound, etc. All this is quite
orthodox so far as I hope you'll agree.

So, with various methods, high doses of tryptamines being the easiest and most
reliable, humans can experience a variety of states that feel just as real,
indeed often "realer than real" as everyday sensory reality. So by what basis
except gut level feeling do we disbelieve in the reality of dreams and believe
in the absolute existence of waking sensation? It's really only that dreams
feel vague and are hard to hold on to mentally and the real world is bold and
seemingly objective because other people agree they experience it in similar
ways. So much for the reality of the world and the unreality of dreams.

But there is a third category of experience available to humans and that is a
visionary state. In such non ordinary states of consciousness people often
have experiences that correlate with the experiences of others. So in this way
it is similar to the situation with waking reality - independent verification
of a 'territory' except that one is material and one is experiential/internal.

Secondly, as I've said before, often these experiences feel realer than real.
Thus there is no reason to dismiss them out of hand, but rather treat reports
and self-investigation as evidence of the same class as evidence from the
material world. That said, we must be careful to avoid mistakes and confusion
and make false theories based on evidence regardless of its kind.

Grof has taken large doses of LSD with sensory isolation hundreds of times and
he has observed, for the full duration of the experience, over 5000
therapeutic sessions where LSD was used. He also had colleagues that did
similar work and had access to their notes. In addition, many of the things
Grof claims are compatible to a large degree with other researches who have
used visionary plants and chemicals.

I myself have had several experiences that led me to find some of Grof's ideas
credible. Specifically Grof thinks humans can undergo a state of 'cosmic
consciousness', or identification with the Godhead, unitive experience, there
are many names for it. I know for a fact this can happen because it happened
to me.

Back to astrology. I admit I'd call bullshit in almost every instance I see
the term 'astrology' but I give Grof a bit of benefit of the doubt. For one
thing I believe he probably does not mean that the actual planets materially
influence human affairs. But rather that some sort of periodic system that is
analogous to the movements of the planets influences the internal world of our
minds. I have no idea if this is true or not.

I think it's quite likely that Grof, as a modern pioneer of this type of
research, has gotten some things wrong. I also think that he's on the right
track to a much greater degree than conventional psychotherapists and
psychologists with regards to the inner workings of the mind.

Why do I think this? Because of my lived experience both in normal waking life
and in NOSC. Also conversations with friends. Why does Grof think this?
Because of his own extensive experience with NOSC and his work with thousands
of therapy clients.

If that's not empirical then I don't know what is.

However, I would have completely rejected my own argument and taken your
position years ago before I had sufficient experience with NOSC. So I can
sympathize if even this post does not convince you.

Edit: To use one of the standard atheist stories for my own benefit, consider
the whole telescope and Galileo and the Church incident. Supposedly some
thought that they mustn't look at the sky through the telescope and thus could
dismiss any claims made by those who chose to look. Clearly in that case those
who used the telescope had a privileged position, more accurate, and indeed
incomprehensible by non-lookers. So I submit to you: NOSC are
telescopes/microscopes for our interior world and if you only use your
rational/cognitive mind you're essentially missing half of the picture of what
it means to be human.

~~~
lutusp
> Well I don't think Bigfoot exists either. But falsifying that claim would
> require very careful investigation of the whole Maine landscape(or wherever
> Bigfoot supposedly lives).

This is your primary logical error, one that runs thorough your entire essay.
No one can possibly falsify the idea that Bigfoot exists, because it would
require proof of a negative, and proof of a negative is _an impossible
evidentiary burden_. This is why scientists have adopted the null hypothesis
as the core posture toward unresolved questions -- it saves huge amounts of
pointless effort.

On that topic, you very clearly didn't bother to read the Russell's Teapot
Wikipedia entry, so here it is again:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot>

> Here is my take on experiential evidence ...

Don't bother. "Experiential evidence" is not evidence, any more than a horse
chestnut is a chestnut horse -- meaning that the words we choose can't change
the identity of the thing being described.

> I myself have had several experiences that led me to find some of Grof's
> ideas credible.

Where is your evidence? Subjective experiences are not evidence. Anyone can
report personal experiences, but this doesn't turn them into scientific
evidence.

Let's say that my "personal experience" is that women are dumber than men.
Does this personal experience stand as an argument against gender equality and
justify a change in public policy? Not in a society that either respects the
scientific method or is able to think logically.

For a dozen reasons, science is not steered by anecdotes. If this were not
true, I could claim to have cured the common cold, and here's how: I shake a
dried gourd over the sufferer until he gets better. It might take a week but
the patient always gets better. So, based on my personal experience, I deserve
a Nobel Prize for curing the common cold, isn't that right?

> So I can sympathize if even this post does not convince you.

Want to persuade me? Locate some evidence. Evidence by its very nature is
objective and repeatable. Personal experiences are neither.

You've chosen to live in a world ruled by belief, and you have every right to
do so. But I think you may want to try to imagine how your defense of these
beliefs looks to an educated person.

