"It works, bitches."
-Author, evolutionary biologist and
militant atheist Richard Dawkins,
when questioned as to what evidence
holds science above other ‘belief systems’
The science is settled folks! Has been for quite some time, age old, tried and true. No questioning it, there is no questioning settled science. No question.
Disregard any and all specifiers, “science” is “science”, is “science”, bitches. Those who consider themselves educated know this to be true, while those familiar with word etymology know that the roots of the word educate are in fact “mid-15c., educaten, “bring up (children), to train,” from Latin educatus, past participle of educare “bring up, rear, educate” (source also of Italian educare, Spanish educar, French éduquer), which is a frequentative of or otherwise related to educere “bring out, lead forth,” from ex- “out” (see ex-) + ducere “to lead,” from PIE root *deuk- “to lead.” Meaning “provide schooling” is first attested 1580s. Related: Educated; educating.” and that, “There is no authority for the common statement that the primary sense of education is to ‘draw out or unfold the powers of the mind.’” (https://www.etymonline.com/word/educate)
Yes, trained minds know what science is, and is not. Trained minds know full well when that science has settled into terra firma, and when it is merely silt muddying the water. Trained minds can tell you when questions will be tolerated, and when they are nothing more than the sign of having an untrained mind. Which then negates not only those questions, but any and all points and observations, as if only those who were taught how to think and handed titles by politically and socially biased institutions that run highly profitable usury scams for money lenders are allowed to pretend like they are thinking.
Certain questions make for informed inquiry, such as “What sort of mask should I wear?” or “Which vaccine should I get?” These are acceptable and indicate that the mouth speaking them is firmly attached to a trained mind. Other questions, such as “Who paid for this study?”, are a glaring warning that a mind is not trained and not limited to the same conditioned structure as the mind that has been taught how to think.
Tinfoil hat time was just a silly way to preface social media posts to alert the reader that what they were about to see was not a commonly held opinion. The musings of an untrained mind. When asked to write this column it seemed the perfect title, and although it has been settled, questioning it will always be acceptable.
As the cannabis community finds itself more and more intertwined with science and research in this post-legal (read: stolen from the people) world, this untrained mind has a few queries about what constitutes ‘settled science’ and what should be considered ‘questioning science’.
Where better to look for answers than chronology? Beginning where we will end, like an ouroboros, takes us back two hundred and three years.
Terpenes, according to merriam-webster, are “any of various isomeric hydrocarbons C10H16
found present in essential oils (as from conifers) and used especially as solvents and in organic synthesis” or more broadly “any of numerous hydrocarbons (C5H8)n found especially in essential oils, resins, and balsams”. The earliest discovery of terpenes is credited to one Jacques-Julien Houtou de LaBillardiere in the year 1818. While analyzing oil of turpentine, one of the oldest essential oils, the French biologist observed a five to eight carbon to hydrogen ratio. In 1866 the name terpene was introduced, being derived from the word turpentine. From there the study of terpenes by various fields of science in the 19th, 20th, and now 21st centuries has shed further light on these wonders of mother nature that have been used in homeopathy and spiritual and religious endeavours for thousands of years.
Then, in 1964, a Belgian born Israeli chemist/biochemist named Raphael Mechoulam isolated what is now known as Tetrahydrocannabinol. Further research into mammalian tissue led to the hunt for natural receptors within the human body that interact with naturally occurring CBD and THC. In the late 80’s and/or early 90’s the endocannabinoid system was officially discovered (by one of the several people the internet claims discovered it) and from there research into the effects it has on the user led to THC potency levels becoming the “scientific” standard for marijuana quality testing, and the basis for the idea that marijuana is a natural medicine that all humans have a natural right to use. As they had been for thousands of years, in homeopathy and spiritual and religious endeavours.
Now, in the year 2021, terpenes are making waves once again. Having the tenacity to believe that naturally occurring essential oils found in plant matter could also be present in the naturally occurring plant known as cannabis, “scientists” have now determined that terpenes are responsible for the different effects partaking in weed has on the human body and mind. Sales representatives of large companies, who surely stay abreast of the most unbiased “science”, go as far as to say that they do not even talk about THC anymore. Terpenes, bitches.
As you can see, the historical chronological facts make it rather difficult to determine what is settled, what is being questioned, who should be considered educated and who should be run out on a rail. It is quite the dilemma.
Does terpene science count as settled, cutting edge, or both? Is the two-hundred-years-old science the correct science, since certainly two hundred years should be enough time to settle? Or is it bunk for questioning the work of Mechoulam, a newer more progressive science that has had a few decades itself to settle? Should sales reps be chased out of dispensaries for questioning the endocannabinoid system? Accused of anti-semetism? Hailed as heroes for resurrecting an old settled belief system? Showered with accolades for championing a new science?
Or maybe, just maybe, science is actually (as the dictionary defines it) “knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation”.
Perhaps it is not a belief system to be carved in stone, but rather the simple act of looking at the wonders of the natural world and seeking explanations. An act that will change depending on a plethora of variables, such as who is doing the looking, when they are looking, what exactly they are looking at, what they are looking for, what tools they are using, what they are trying to accomplish, who is paying them, and to what conclusion they seek to arrive.
It could be that the truly ‘scientific’ thing to do would be to entertain all ‘science’. To understand that these variables exist. To consider things like how the methods used to collect data can alter data. To take into account who paid for it’s collection and how it is being presented.
On an even higher level, perhaps science should not be given any credit at all for simply observing what mother nature herself has provided. ‘Science’ only works because nature works. It could accurately be described as reverse engineering the natural world. Should the ability to recognize patterns, observe and think, abilities we posses due to our pre-existing nature, be enough for mankind to steal credit from the universe from which it was born?
