4 ms·

Aside from the claim that there have thousands of equally impactful mathematicians (have there been 100?) that doesn't invalidate the claim that illegal drug us

Aside from the claim that there have thousands of equally impactful mathematicians (have there been 100?) that doesn't invalidate the claim that illegal drug use has had a positive effect on mathematical knowledge, even if Erdos has been the only human in history to benefit.

Confusion 16y ago
Nothing can invalidate that claim if you're not seriously considering the implicit alternative explanation that mahmud offers, which is that Erdos would have been just as productive without the drugs. Using Erdos as a 'plausible example' of the positive effects of drug use is fallacious, because it's a statistic with N = 1. Especially given the fact that a side effect of these drugs seems to be that it reduces creativity, we may just as well suppose that Erdos was impaired by them and would have been even more brilliant if he had realized he could do it without the chemicals.
- eru 16y ago
  Erdős went off drugs for a month or so, and complained that he could not work as well as with the drugs. (Of course, you could still argue that the real alternative isn't one month off drugs, but no drugs at all. But that's a slightly weaker argument.) Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s) says: > After 1971 he also took amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month. Erdős won the bet, but complained during his abstinence that mathematics had been set back by a month: "Before, when I looked at a piece of blank paper my mind was filled with ideas. Now all I see is a blank piece of paper." After he won the bet, he promptly resumed his amphetamine habit.
  - usaar333 16y ago
    Actually a much stronger argument. Anyone who has been taking drugs for that long is going to have serious withdrawal issues. This is analogous to a heavy coffee drinker complaining he is exhausted and has a headache because he missed his daily dose of caffeine; it isn't so much that people can't operate sans caffeine, it is that his brain has become wired to expect the daily stimulant.
    - dkersten 16y ago
      Exactly. If he had been off the drugs for, say, a year, instead of just a month, then his argument would be a lot more convincing.
      - eru 16y ago
        Indeed. But, alas, Erdős only wanted to win the bet, not run a scientific experiment. By the way, I remember that Erdős reported that he felt better after a month off drugs. It was just that mathematics suffered.
        dkersten 16y ago
        I would wager that his creativity would come back after a few months. If he felt better, but mathematics suffered, then I imagine that it really was just a post-drug drop in creativity and motivation and that normally passes.
        eru 16y ago
        I don't know. I don't even know, if it was a lack of creativity that held him back, or not being able to focus, or maybe something else.
        dkersten 16y ago
        lack of creativity, lack of motivation, lack of focus - all of these things are to be expected after giving up drugs, I didn't specifically just mean creativity. The longer you are dependent on the drugs, the longer the comedown will be. I have experimented in the past, and I say this from personal experiences. Having said that, it could well have been something else entirely that prevented him from producing as many or as good results and I'm not saying that the drugs didn't really improve his ability - I am saying that we don't have enough information to know for sure and that a month may not have been long enough to be conclusive.
- jemfinch 16y ago
  > Using Erdos as a 'plausible example' of the positive effects of drug use is fallacious, because it's a statistic with N = 1. Um, a "statistic with N = 1" is exactly what an "example" is.
  - Confusion 16y ago
    Yeah, but the plausibility of the example is quite small, due to the often found side-effect of reduction of creativity. As an aside, you could argue that an example is one instance from a larger set, where N >> 1 and where the other instances lend credibility to the reported example. Erdos's story, on the other hand, would be anecdotal evidence, not supported by any other similar story.

Confusion 16y ago

Nothing can invalidate that claim if you're not seriously considering the implicit alternative explanation that mahmud offers, which is that Erdos would have been just as productive without the drugs. Using Erdos as a 'plausible example' of the positive effects of drug use is fallacious, because it's a statistic with N = 1. Especially given the fact that a side effect of these drugs seems to be that it reduces creativity, we may just as well suppose that Erdos was impaired by them and would have been even more brilliant if he had realized he could do it without the chemicals.

eru 16y ago
Erdős went off drugs for a month or so, and complained that he could not work as well as with the drugs. (Of course, you could still argue that the real alternative isn't one month off drugs, but no drugs at all. But that's a slightly weaker argument.) Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s) says: > After 1971 he also took amphetamines, despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month. Erdős won the bet, but complained during his abstinence that mathematics had been set back by a month: "Before, when I looked at a piece of blank paper my mind was filled with ideas. Now all I see is a blank piece of paper." After he won the bet, he promptly resumed his amphetamine habit.
- usaar333 16y ago
  Actually a much stronger argument. Anyone who has been taking drugs for that long is going to have serious withdrawal issues. This is analogous to a heavy coffee drinker complaining he is exhausted and has a headache because he missed his daily dose of caffeine; it isn't so much that people can't operate sans caffeine, it is that his brain has become wired to expect the daily stimulant.
  - dkersten 16y ago
    Exactly. If he had been off the drugs for, say, a year, instead of just a month, then his argument would be a lot more convincing.
    - eru 16y ago
      Indeed. But, alas, Erdős only wanted to win the bet, not run a scientific experiment. By the way, I remember that Erdős reported that he felt better after a month off drugs. It was just that mathematics suffered.
      - dkersten 16y ago
        I would wager that his creativity would come back after a few months. If he felt better, but mathematics suffered, then I imagine that it really was just a post-drug drop in creativity and motivation and that normally passes.
        eru 16y ago
        I don't know. I don't even know, if it was a lack of creativity that held him back, or not being able to focus, or maybe something else.
        dkersten 16y ago
        lack of creativity, lack of motivation, lack of focus - all of these things are to be expected after giving up drugs, I didn't specifically just mean creativity. The longer you are dependent on the drugs, the longer the comedown will be. I have experimented in the past, and I say this from personal experiences. Having said that, it could well have been something else entirely that prevented him from producing as many or as good results and I'm not saying that the drugs didn't really improve his ability - I am saying that we don't have enough information to know for sure and that a month may not have been long enough to be conclusive.
jemfinch 16y ago
> Using Erdos as a 'plausible example' of the positive effects of drug use is fallacious, because it's a statistic with N = 1. Um, a "statistic with N = 1" is exactly what an "example" is.
- Confusion 16y ago
  Yeah, but the plausibility of the example is quite small, due to the often found side-effect of reduction of creativity. As an aside, you could argue that an example is one instance from a larger set, where N >> 1 and where the other instances lend credibility to the reported example. Erdos's story, on the other hand, would be anecdotal evidence, not supported by any other similar story.