2 ms·

Crick developed his understanding of the structure of LSD during an LSD trip. Steve Jobs developed an active aversion to buttons during one of his LSD trips.

Crick developed his understanding of the structure of LSD during an LSD trip. Steve Jobs developed an active aversion to buttons during one of his LSD trips. These were merely two examples of direct counterpoints to the GGP post. These weren't concepts that were enabled indirectly by LSD; they were the direct results of the LSD trips, not cases of "I was able/not able to do <X> because I took/never took <Y>".

michaelcampbell 12y ago
Strawman. While those stories MAY be true, it's equally valid to posit that those discoveries/thoughts may well have happened otherwise, too. Just like all the things that have been discovered while not on LSD, for example.
- eatmyshorts 12y ago
  I think you're confusing a "straw man argument" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ) with "anectdotal evidence" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence ). I never claimed anything but anectdotal evidence, as I presented three separate cases of anectdotal evidence as direct contradictions to the original post. These examples are, indeed, direct contradictions to the original post. The original author then edited their post to add the bit about possible therapeutic properties of the drug, but the original content stated categorically that LSD did not contribute to any significant development in people that took it, and I presented three counterpoints, two of which claim that their insights came while on the drug, as a direct consequence of the drug's effects on the mind. In either case, the additional edit stating "that everyone should do it for no particular reason except curiosity" was not in the original post, and is something that nobody here, as far as I can tell, is promoting. LSD, like psilocybin, is a powerful drug, and should be respected as such.

michaelcampbell 12y ago

Strawman. While those stories MAY be true, it's equally valid to posit that those discoveries/thoughts may well have happened otherwise, too. Just like all the things that have been discovered while not on LSD, for example.

eatmyshorts 12y ago
I think you're confusing a "straw man argument" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ) with "anectdotal evidence" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence ). I never claimed anything but anectdotal evidence, as I presented three separate cases of anectdotal evidence as direct contradictions to the original post. These examples are, indeed, direct contradictions to the original post. The original author then edited their post to add the bit about possible therapeutic properties of the drug, but the original content stated categorically that LSD did not contribute to any significant development in people that took it, and I presented three counterpoints, two of which claim that their insights came while on the drug, as a direct consequence of the drug's effects on the mind. In either case, the additional edit stating "that everyone should do it for no particular reason except curiosity" was not in the original post, and is something that nobody here, as far as I can tell, is promoting. LSD, like psilocybin, is a powerful drug, and should be respected as such.