Positivism can be reductionist and traditional indigenous modes of knowledge production can be quite non-empirical. Together, however at odds they seem, I'd wager that they can both help shed light on the immensely complex mechanisms of psychedelics writ large.
I don't buy this characterization of competing epistomologies nor do I buy the notion that science and indigenous knowledge respectively arise neatly from these two seemingly exclusive epistomologies. That's frankly bullshit.
I'm also rather offended by this notion that indigenous knowledge is "non-empirical". Maybe some indigenous "healers" ignore empirical evidence, and I guess the same could be said by many New Age "spiritual" practitioners of various types in Western culture---and at least some licensed and practicing doctors for that matter. I think we can universally refer to such people as quacks or hucksters, and we can recognize that their existence spans across cultures.
I am also very uncomfortable with the attempted classification of any indigenous knowledge into the "spiritual" category, in so far as the matter versus spirit duality is also a Western construction. IMO, the real problem here is an inability to describe and communicate complex phenomenon without a shared cultural context. This gets reinforced by colonial interactions, in which the colonizers have incentive to discredit the indigenous knowledge or alternatively to exotify it. (Again, the New Age movement comes to mind!)
The problem in this thread and with this mushroom story is not that some stingy "scientists" are refusing to accept the "non-empirical knowledge" of the "indigenous", but rather that we---the readers---simply don't have information to go on. Most of the reporting is speculative, and the actual facts that have been presented are quite thin. We don't have even one proper first-hand trip report, do we? Why not? I can think of a few possible reasons. It's certainly possible that the field is simply wide open. Colin Domnauer is a biologist and is not likely to give attention to traditional use, or whatever. Maybe someday another researcher will take up that cause and we will be able to learn more.
For a number of reasons, however, I doubt that there is much of anything to study "there". The mushroom could be a hoax or maybe something akin to a ghost story among the locals (which could be motivated by any number of underlying things). Either of these might be interesting to study, but my best guess is that the mushroom simply produces a really shitty trip. Maybe people come out totally amnesic? Or maybe it's just super-toxic---presumably nastier than Solanaceae plants (like Datura) which many people around the world do find reason to use.
If the trip is really shitty, then why would anyone "indigenous" or otherwise want to take the drug? Probably only the unusually naive and overly curious. I dunno how many of you have interacted with Chinese people or Asian cultures in general, but often if they are all laughing in your presence, they are laughing
at you. Anyone going to a market and asking specifically about mushrooms that cause a shitty trip is probably going to be
laughed at for being ignorant/foolish, like defiant children ignoring their elder's advice who are about to suffer the consequences.
What you perceive to be unnecessary pedantry is actually essential to recognizing and escaping your stereotypes. These stereotypes may help you deal with the world on simpler terms, but they also confine you to an overly narrow frame and limit your opportunities for increased understanding and growth.
