I am correct.
As a technical term, theory is not what you or phaxius thinks.
A theory does not graduate to being fact.
I never said a
theory in itself was fact, indeed my post indicates that a theory is NOT fact but is conjecture.
Scientific theory is all about testable evidence based on "individual empirically testable conjectures" wiki, thanks Vurtual
. I'm not talking about scientific theory unless i mention "scientific theory" or "evidence based theory". A theory aka "hypothesis" may have a basis on some kind of fact but that basis can be as remote as the image of something that looks like a mushroom painted on a cave wall. A theory "hypothesis" does not need fact. Fact (scientific methodology) can and does often prove a theory (hypothesis) to be groundless.
Scientific theory and the scientific methodology associated are different from hypothesis/conjecture or "speculative" theory. Theory in itself does not mean scientific theory unless scientific methodology is applied to collect data. I guess "hypothesis" is the more correct term but unless your specifically talking about scientific theory and the associated methodology the word "theory" is as good as "hypothesis", Speculation, conjecture, guessing, stab in the dark. I don't think I specified myself as well as I should have previously.
An example: people thought the earth was flat and this was taken as fact (despite the ancient Greeks proving the earth was round over 2000 years ago this knowledge was lost to Europe in the middle ages). Next thing Columbus sails round the world and hey the world is NOT flat, it's round. Well the earth is flat theory (hypothesis) was disproved. Often developments in say physics prove another scientists theories (hypothesis) incorrect when data is collected that can be scientifically tested and evidence gathered which equates to FACT. SPECULATION DOES NOT REQUIRE FACT! You are correct pmoseman however scientific theory and methodology only applies to what can be scientifically tested. If you believe the word "theory" only applies to the scientific model then I think you are incorrect. This post is a speculative theory/conjecture/speculation/shot in the dark.
A speculative theory or hypothesis would be psychedelics having a direct impact on human development. There is little evidence outside of cultural practices of indigenous peoples to say that psychedelics have ever played a part in human development. Coca leaves have been found in South American burials/offerings dating back some 3000 years and that is a scientifically validated fact. This is purely speculative theory or "hypothesis". When I speak of a scientific or evidence based theory it one based on data that can be tested and achieve repeatable results. Just to clear up muddied waters.
To make it simple psychedelics influencing the evolution of mankind is a THEORY, a speculative theory aka "hypothesis". Influencing physical evolution is a speculative theory or "hypothesis" as there is no data to base this assumption on it's just that an idea/conjecture/assumption. Psychedelics influencing mankind and our cultural evolution has some evidence such as references in popular contemporary culture ie books, movies, video games. It is testable ie there exist movies/books/media/web site etc that have drug use as central themes and can therefore be scientifically tested.
In the case of say erowid for example there will be people accessing the website and they may or may not chose to use psychedelics. That is evidence there is interest in these substances in contemporary culture. The number of people accessing such data would indicate the percentage of society with internet access, an interest in drugs which could be refined to those accessing data on psychedelics and the type of data accessed. This in turn implies interest in these substances among contemporary members of society and therefore may influence/impact cultural evolution. You would then need to gather data on those accessing said information as to the influence on their life that caused them to seek such data. Cultural evolution could be as simple as someone reading a book on LSD or someone painting about their experience on DMT and selling that to people. This indicates an interest in this material and therefore an impact of some kind. The literature or imagery being/becoming popular with mainstream contemporary culture indicates it has some degree of impact/influence upon contemporary culture and therefore influences evolving contemporary trends.
Is it an evidence based theory? There is some evidence psychedelics have influenced certain cultural evolution in different ethnic minorities. Tribes in the amazon have a number of beliefs relating to ritualistic use of psychedelics. This is a scientific theory that can be tested using scientific methodology. This data indicates most indigenous peoples use psychedelics to some extent be it individuals like a shaman or witch doctor be they male or female or more widely distributed such as eating peyote among certain Native American People. There is no evidence these practices have changed our evolutionary path as a species. There is no evidence to say we as a species have physically evolved in an alternative manner to that in which we would otherwise have evolved that would be pure "hypothesis" or speculative theory ie a guess.
Cultural evolution has however been influenced both indirectly and directly. An example: Fear and Loathing in Los Vegas a published novel and movie. The concept of psychedelic use is part of popular culture whether people chose to experience these things or not. Because of popular contemporary culture I'd say substances like psychedelics have become part of global popular culture and influenced cultural evolution to some extent but not physical evolution. This is an example of evidence based theory as in there is evidence that psychedelics (not the use just the concept) are influences on contemporary culture such as arts and movies.
The speculative theory "hypothesis" is some degree of contemporary cultural impact by psychedelic substances and the concept of these substances influencing contemporary culture such as art, film, literature etc. This data can be tested using scientific methodology this being there exists a volume of contemporary cultural phenomena such as movies, literature, internet sites that examine or relate in some fashion to psychedelics use, experience, creative influence, events etc. This in turn is viewed or accessed by a percentage of the population. Asking these individuals if they were previously aware of this substance, if these contemporary cultural phenomena had impacted them in any way would indicate some degree of cultural/social impact. Evidence based (scientific) theory tested using scientific methodology. Now that the testing has concluded and it is evident there is some degree of cultural impact of psychedelic substances through art, film, literature etc it has become a scientific or evidence based theory.
Hope my alterations made my comments as clear as crystal or mud. Just my thoughts and elaboration to avoid confusion and retraction from previous comment about fellow BLer. Also this post is much waffle about nothing!