25 ms·
It happens all the time. DNA double helix is a good example. You really think people are going to mention their drug use in white papers? I think not. Nothing t
by bongodongobob 2y ago
It happens all the time. DNA double helix is a good example. You really think people are going to mention their drug use in white papers? I think not. Nothing to gain and everything to lose.
- devmor 2y agoThe record of a scientific discovery that is heavily criticized for plagiarism and falsehoods is probably not a good example, actually.
- bongodongobob 2y agoWell here's one: tons of people do drugs. It's not even a question whether or not drugs have inspired discoveries. They obviously have.
- wat10000 2y agoTons of people eat carrots. That doesn’t imply carrots have inspired discoveries.
- soulofmischief 2y agoThat is a textbook false equivalence.
- wat10000 2y agoIt’s exactly the same argument.
- soulofmischief 2y agoPlease explain how they are equivalent and why the psychoactive properties of a psychedelic don't make it categorically different in this situation than a carrot.
- wat10000 2y agoThe argument was: lots of people do X, so X has obviously inspired discoveries.
- soulofmischief 2y agoCarrots inspire science, too. https://phys.org/news/2015-12-tablet-screen-brought-aid-carrots.html https://phys.org/news/2015-12-tablet-screen-brought-aid-carr... > It was the Austrian botanist Friedrich Reinitzer and the German physicist Otto Lehmann who discovered liquid crystals in 1888 when they were experimenting with the natural substances found in carrots Carrots have also inspired art, I don't need to find an example of that. That said, if you view that premise as it being a given that X has inspired something just because lots of people do it, then it is indeed preposterous. However, if you view it as "a critical mass of people have done mind-altering substances and thus it's almost a certainty that discoveries have been made under and due to their influence", then it makes a lot more sense. It's a fundamentally different argument and you can't generalize it to any non-mind-altering substance. The point is that the mind is altered by the substance, causing different modes of thought. I think you were just confused about the way the other commenter laid out their premise, because it's a purely statistical argument with the qualifier that we're talking about substances that measurably alter thought processes.
- wat10000 2y ago> a critical mass of people have done mind-altering substances and thus it's almost a certainty that discoveries have been made under... their influence This much is obvious. But that sneaky “and due to” which I cut out does not belong. You’re putting a completely unfounded assumption next to a simple statistical argument and presenting them as equivalent.
- soulofmischief 2y agoIt's not sneaky at all, I'd appreciate a more charitable interpretation. It's not unfounded. If a substance alters someone's thoughts, it is then responsible in some part for the thoughts they have while under its influence.
- devmor 2y agoHave they? I find it likely, personally, but it doesn’t mean it’s not entirely coincidental either.