3 ms·
Sorry, but that's just one person. In what situation would you trust a study based on one person? I know, lots of people go crazy on meth. There is also god kn
by drewsmahgoos 7y ago
Sorry, but that's just one person. In what situation would you trust a study based on one person?
I know, lots of people go crazy on meth. There is also god knows what else in street meth. There are so many people taking amphetamines that are successful and there are people taking prescription methamphetamine as well.
Personally I wouldn't want to be on stimulants, long term, on a daily basis. But just because you know one person(or maybe more) that went crazy and had a personality change on meth, does not mean that there isn't successful use.
There are also plenty of people successfully using opiates as well. So many people use drugs daily and live a normal life.
- throwaway_tech 7y ago>In what situation would you trust a study based on one person? Anytime someone else makes a blanket statement with no study (example: amphetamine doesn't make you crazy)...all you need is n=1 to disprove that.
- drewsmahgoos 7y agoBut that goes both ways...
- throwaway_tech 7y agoProving and disproving a hypothesis are entirely different standards. For example I have a coin with heads/tails, I hypothesis if I flip it it always lands on heads and we flip it 1 time (n=1), and sure enough it lands on heads that doesn't prove my hypothesis (its very weak support at best), whereas is we flip the coin 1 time (n=1) and its tails that disproves my hypothesis (or at least is strong support my hypothesis is wrong).
- vidarh 7y agoBut that requires demonstrating an actual casual relationship, not just a correlation.