[asveikau]

Ironically enough, the psychedelic field sort of defies some scientific analysis, so could be construed as "anti-science". I've seen some commentary that it's difficult to test. As an example, you can't really do a double blind study with a placebo because it's obvious to everybody who got the drug.

[connicpu]

The same could be said for a lot of drugs that have strong side effects, just one difference here is the main "side effects" are something some people consider fun. Though you could still do double-blind for comparing the effectiveness of different psychedelics, e.g comparing LSD to Psilocybin.

[_whiteCaps_]

Niacin works well as an 'active placebo'.

[tonyarkles]

I’ve seen studies use methylphenidate as well for the “control” group. Relatively harmless, will have some effects and side effects on naive subjects.

[elzbardico]

Double blind studies became a requirement in order to protect the people from the greed of pharmaceutica companies and their natural desire to cut corners in research.

[dnautics]

just because it's not double blind doesn't mean it's not science though.

like idk, how do you do double blind studies of astronomical phenomena?

[asveikau]

Yeah I know. I'm pulling that out as an example.

It's also true that people in the psychedelic world talk about non-reproducible aspects of the trip quite a bit. "Set and setting" and so forth.

[ambicapter]

> just because it's not double blind doesn't mean it's not science though.

Shhh, non-scientists don't know that.