In science, evidence trumps eminence, unless it is something like cold fusion.
If we can measure this "crackpot bias", I am not sure psychedelic research would have as high of a bias as cold fusion, but it might have been closer say, ten or twenty years ago. No one wanted to touch that stuff or could get grants to do such research.
Yep. For things like cold fusion, wishful thinking reigns, but for anything health-related, desperation reigns. Neither produces any kind of desirable science, the kind that's curious without being passionate for a particular outcome.
"for anything health-related, desperation reigns" <-- That sounds like a clever, truthful statement, but it's nothing more than a blanket statement that also demonstrates this bias I spoke of. Are there desperate people? Yes, quite a number of them. Is what Tim Ferris doing a result from desperation? I doubt it. Are there people who will unthinkingly fund this because of Tim Ferris's fame? Sure. Are there people who are open-minded though skeptical and curious about what Tim Ferris is doing? Sure. So what's the problem here?
When I see a project being promoted by a list of famous, influential investors, instead of the refereed results of extensive and carefully controlled clinical trials, I'm reminded how often this sort of project conceals more than it reveals:
http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-f...
Let's all remember that, in science, evidence trumps eminence -- or it should.