> that the thing about ketamine/psilocybin/etc that is helping with depression is not some latent property of the molecule, but rather the actual transcendent experience
I thought the same thing when reading the article, but then I started to wonder how the fuck would you double blind that?
Well, you wouldn't. It's largely a metaphysical stance rather than a scientific one[0], which I suspect is precisely why modern medicine is struggling to engage with it.
[0] Mostly. Part of it falls under Dennett's notion of an intentional stance, but that requires us to take self-report seriously, and so precludes a number of experimental designs.
You don’t. It’s fundamentally incompatible. But that’s fine.
People are able to acquire knowledge in ways besides randomized, controlled, double-blind trials. Nearly all knowledge is acquired in some other way. I say this as someone who writes A/B testing software for a living.
Could give them a psychoactive that's not reputed to help with depression. As long as they don't know what a trip looks like they won't know you gave them DMT when they're talking to the machine elves.
I thought the same thing when reading the article, but then I started to wonder how the fuck would you double blind that?