"Scrutiny Of Knowledge" Series-Introduction

I have a need to write this post as a rent and introduction into my next series. So, lets start with the second part, introduction. I need this post to reference to it in future studies or discussions.
Reading scientific articles while researching certain fields of interest is one of my passions. I have always been amazed with science and how much humanity has benefited from it, not to mention last 2 decades; the way it works and evolves. Think of it as a method for description of our universe. What’s crucial is that when it is wrong, new facts are taken into consideration and it moves on from there. Yes, it can be wrong and is wrong in most hypothesis; but unlike from other “theories” it challenges itself; while facts stay true. Every scientist wants to surpass others with knowledge and discoveries of empirical evidence while all of them working towards the same mutual achievement; science is cumulative, building on itself from itself. Most of the findings and knowledge is free and public, available to anyone with enough interest. There are few reasons why it has so strong ground in helping to understand our life and universe, but I have specific interest in only few of them.

Peer review; double-checking study, article or publication. Several scientists that work in same field evaluate the work of each other by providing feedback regarding the publication that was written. This creates a form of trust between the community. (1) This method is not just used for science, because it provides credibility and improves quality and clinical performance it has become widely adopted.
Double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial; type of study where participants nor experimenter know who got the treatment and who got placebo. This is to eliminate effect of placebo and personal bias that contributes to the influence of the outcome. There are two groups observed in this study. Control group is the one that did not receive “subject in question” or received placebo. Experimental group is the one that got “subject in question” or treatment. Data is then collected without any outside influence. This data can be considered as a fact or empirical evidence.
Critical thinking; not negative thinking. Critical thinking means using reason and logic rather than emotions, bias, instincts or beliefs while being objective and balanced in acknowledging conclusions.
Skepticism; not scepticism. Doubting, avoiding postulation of final truths based on beliefs or questioning certain knowledge and beliefs using evidence-based approach, in this case reviews and trials. (2) This requires adopting and trusting. Sceptic might say moon landing was faked. Skeptic will say that even though there is possibility, enough evidence is claiming it is not true. Let me get one thing straight here by citing Dawkins:

By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Richard Dawkins

Knowledge, on any subject is always beneficial for human development as it leads to other findings. I have caught myself so many times surfing in the 3 am and reading about some random stuff I will never use; but who knows what I might come to think of. It is just a matter of information being available to me, so I read. Lately, I have focused that attention towards cannabis culture. I would like to share with you my findings. With some of them you might not agree, they might trigger you, some will be provocative, but I sincerely hope they will make you think and dig deeper. How know what you may encounter. I encourage you to go into debate, state your opinion; whatever you mean, but do I know I need sources for the states you claim; I will always cite mine. What may come into consideration for debate must be facts as they are, not game of broken telephone by saying thing like I hear, I read somewhere, my friend…To Understand why have a look at this video and you will understand much better why someone’s personal statements are not the facts.

Now imagine if you were to swear with your life in what you just seen, first part. Think you understand it by now what are my implications.

Data is the only thing that matters here. Everything else is just a game of broken telephone.

Above paragraph might be rent; here is another one that sure is. There is one great line I read somewhere, too bad I don’t know the author, but It went something like this:

Can we please legalize weed so we can stop with all the cancer-cure crap!

If you want to know my opinion on this subject, you can find it HERE

Therefore, I want to present the facts as they are. This might anger or trigger some community members, but that is how life works. Truth is not what you believe or want it to be. It is something beyond our beliefs, something we can’t influence on, but just accept. This series will be about scientific findings, facts and knowledge about cannabis. I feel that anybody can speak in the name of science if he or she respects and cites sources for the claims they have. So, please feel free to comment whatever you like, if you disagree or not, why, what is your opinion, your thoughts, your findings, research…
Hope you understand what I meant. If we strive towards legalization, we need firm facts and grounds for the claims we say. This is the only way to succeed in debates that are yet to come and research that is going to be done revolving around our favorite plant.

I have seen some articles on subjects I will be covering, but most of them are without references or copy/paste scheme. Mine will be different in a sense that they can be trusted as reliable source of information. They will be objective so you can expect informing on the topic of negative effects and impact of cannabis, while smoking for example. I am aware that some of them might not be directly related to cannabis, but for sure they will be something used in cannabis industry and something most of consumers and growers should know. For example, if I want to explain specific terpenes from cannabis, I need to explain what terpenes in the first place are. This is widely accepted consensus in scientific community; if we are to discuss any subject, we need to agree on ones that preceded that subject.

References:

1. Dans, PE (1993). "Clinical peer review: burnishing a tarnished image". Ann. Intern. Med. 118 (7): 566–8. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-118-7-199304010-00014. PMID 8442628
2. Popkin, R. H. The History of Skepticism from Erasmus to Descartes (rev. ed. 1968); C. L. Stough, Greek Skepticism (1969); M. Burnyeat, ed., The Skeptical Tradition (1983); B. Stroud, The Significance of Philosophical Skepticism (1984). Encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com

Inquiries about anything are welcome!
Upvote, comment and follow if you like!
Have a great journey!

Work presented on this page is original and authentic; made by me with little help from my wife and internet.
Any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form from this page is prohibited without the permission of the copyright owner, in this case Milan M. (@psyceratopsb)

If you want to donate, I will gladly appreciate!
All revenue will be used as funds for opening “Mobile Art Research Studio- MARS”.

ETH
0xca86490aBf420d625113adA810A05E1977dAF11e
NEO
Abpds5NQLxwFnPfg7RkFw8CFzvNF9WxiMn

One small sentence of gratitude to my wife Martina for all of Her support and inspiration!
You can check some of her work HERE

© All Rights Reserved by @psyceratopsb 2019 ©