apparently I'm not smart enough to word an idea in such a way that it's not misread, unread, or taken out of context. I hate repeating and rephrasing my words. I think I'll take some getting hit on the head lessons now.
Just for the record dude--you were making some great points, and I actually enjoyed the discussion with you. I just categorically disagree with you viewpoint, that's all.
It's not about winning or losing, it's about coming to understanding. You're never going to believe I'm all the way right, and I'm never going to believe you are all the way right. The truth, and both of us also know this--is that neither of us can really say something about any of this with any kind of authority. That's the point, I think it's worth coming at it from a different angle. The only thing which riles me up slightly is that anyone would flat out attack a perfectly reasonable and non-invasive plan to
maybe get some interesting results.
People for some reason take offense to my appeal to reason which states that we're sort of doing the wrong things if we want to be
exacting. We are getting a good general picture, yes--and I never did say we weren't. What I am saying is there's no reason to believe that it's not possible for us to further clarify some things if we're smart about it.
It bothers me that an obviously positive idea like that would be met with such fervent nay-saying. I'm happy to take constructive criticisms, or to even be proven wrong entirely if someone feels up to it--but it doesn't jive with me that I should keep my mouth shut about things I think when people get to jibberjabbin' back and forth talkin about how this grams per watt here and that grams per watt there and how shit has been
scientifically proven or "tested"--when in realty, the both of us know that's not the case.
As I've said--not everything worthwhile comes out of science, but when you do science almost universally something useful will eventually come out of it (if you look in the right places). Trying to make a point against that is like trying to make a point against the possibility of the history of mankind. We owe most if not all of our history to this idea of testing new things, probing new depths, and asking unpopular questions.
Face it--without dickheads like me (or rather super geniuses who are as stubborn as I am) the world would be nothing like it is. We'd still be taming the fucking west if we let nay-sayers and know-it-alls run the world.
Things only get better if you try to make them better. How the hell would anyone know what's possible unless they've tried. I don't plan on letting this issue die--I will make something of this plan, because it's one I believe in.
I'm not just sitting here talking out of my ass and disagreeing with you to spite you. I'm disagreeing with you because
I do disagree with you.
What you'll find with me is that I will find a hole irregardless of the
wording of your argument--because what I'm attacking is not the wording insomuch as I'm attacking the
substance of your arguments. Yes, I go after primarily the wording--
but this is only possible if your wording does not justify your claim. If what you meant was clear, and you were right about it I wouldn't be a huge asshole and play semantics with you. If your claim was solid--no amount of discourse from me would be able to dismantle it, I'd only end up looking the fool for trying to attack your words rather than your meaning--I'd argue that's precisely the opposite of what I've done. I've attacked your meaning
through your words. They don't match up because what you're saying doesn't make sense.
It was the same problem with the dude I ignored and the word maximize. He wanted to play semantics with that word--but ultimately it was his reasoning which was incorrect not his choice of words or the definition I was going by. It's clear what he meant, and that he was overstepping his ability as a human to claim omnipotent knowledge about a plant and any future discoveries which might stem from doing science with it.
Excepting a few things, many of your arguments were flimsily supported--but a few of your points were well received, a reason why I enjoyed the discourse with you--I perhaps learned a few things and certainly thought in new ways about things. However, much of the main
substance of your argument which
was well supported was not in direct opposition to my claim. While true, things like this aren't relevant.
The question still remains--how perfect is your knowledge of the plant? So perfect to rule out the possibility of any benefit to be gained by science? Answering this question yes is the only way to win the central argument here--and that's why it's such a kerfuffle, you know you can't answer this way--but you also want to wriggle a win out somehow.
The problem you're facing is that it's impossible to make a perfectly sound argument against something like that. You're actually a damn good debater, if I do say so--because you managed to actually make a solid attempt at doing this. However, when something just isn't so--and the
substance isn't there to back your claim--you'll find it's impossible to win a debate against an informed foe irrespective of the wording you choose.
There are no words to refute the possibility of a benefit gained by doing some science. This has long been the strength of science. In a way it is one of the few things which is its own justification. The only socially acceptable way to refute such a claim is with science--because this is the only standardized fashion in which we can make arguments which are considered "irrefutable". No matter what you say about the world, everyone isn't going to be convinced until two people agree on something: the preacher and the scientist.
When those two agree, shit gets down. Otherwise, there's always someone left out--someone waiting for an answer that they believe. Because of this, I'm
well within the realm of sanity to claim that until you do some science, you won't know if it can or can't help. Like I said earlier, it's kinduv a dick move--but that's one of the perks of being a scientist. I can always ask a question that no one has answered yet. It's how we get money--we convince people that the answers they find might surprise them, and we do that by surprising them over and over and over again with what we find. Science has an excellent track record in this respect.
Science is, as much as any other methodology, a system to study the world which is
not perfect. This is why science isn't the
only way--but it is a different way, and it's a way to do things in a standardized way that has given our species nearly all of it's greatest abilities. Single-handedly, this one simple standard process has changed the face of the globe.
What you've found is a person who isn't looking for a well worded argument, but rather a well centered and substantive one. Some of the least learned people in my life have put me in my place in arguments more often than I care to count--this is likely due to their perspective being better at viewing certain issues. It's the same argument I'm having here.
For you to "win" the argument, you'd essentially have to prove that there is no reason to look at any cannabis research through a scientific lens and perspective. It has nothing to do with the words broseph. I get what you're saying--a lot of it is right--but the central claim is at worst wrong, and at best something you can't prove right now. Whereas I have hundreds of years of results and millions of examples to suggest that doing science
might turn up some surprises.
