Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Drug testing in meds


Recommended Posts

Logic:

 

Science is hypotheses that explain all observable truths.

The only objective truth is observable truth.

Scientific hypotheses must be testable and therefore falsifiable.

In the event that multiple hypotheses can explain all observable truths, only those hypotheses that are scientific may be considered objective-truth worthy.

Therefore evolution>being an idiot>creationism. (Or objective truth is testable and falsifiable)

 

Sorry, but creation is fundamentally incompatible with science until such a time as a deity (him/herself) reveals itself (and of course I will then be the first, or at least one of the first, to admit).

 

Assume something to be scientifically true. For example, imagine that you didn't know that F=ma or any other simple scientific truth. You can subject it to experiments and show that in every case (or even not in every case, but in a definable subset of cases) it is true. It is thus falsifiable/subject to experimentation, and everytime an experiment confirms it, it becomes a stronger hypothesis. It is true that there are infinite equations that can explain this relationship, i.e. F=ma+C, where C equals the number of bananas I threw off my balcony today; of course with no reasoning behind choosing F=ma over F=ma+C we must choose the theory that is most supported by logic (i.e. there can be no logical reason to suggest that any force is influenced by the bananas I throw off of my balcony, therefore F=ma+C is silly).

 

Even with that silly example, it is easily falsifiable, lets just have me throw ten bananas off my balcony and see what F=.

 

Creation is not falsifiable. Creation will always say that whatever science tells us, before that was god who made it so. As we push back the understood history of the universe, you can always simply axiomatize a god to put before it. This is not science.

 

I personally believe the only truth is observable truth, supported by evidence. Otherwise, there exists no reason to not believe that I am in fact god.

 

If you care to disagree, I wonder about this one question: Is it the case that there exists a reason to not believe that one is god? Or less convoluted: How do you decide that x (pick someone, anyone, your best friend for instance, your boyfriend/girlfriend, Jon Stewart, George Clooney, Olle Jokinen, Barack Obama, Mikhail Gorbachev, Spartacus etc etc etc ) is or is not god?

 

This is my question and always has been: What is the criteria for belief? Why do you believe in x and not y?

 

I can not belittle faith in private. I have a faithful family with religion who seem to think they do good because of it. I will not belittle their faith. But rest assured that if they bring it out in public I will ask them the same question: Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 219
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Dear itimebomb2,

 

YOU ARE NOT AN IDIOT!!! You are clearly a capable and thoughtful individual.

 

The issue I have with you is that you obsess about evolution for no reason. Answer the following question: is it a violation of separation of church and state to teach creationism/intelligent design/Scientologist design/Islamic design in a science class?

 

Also, what is the name of your intelligent designer? Is it Xenu? Quezacotl?

 

My point is: it is a threat to Christianity/any other religion to treat it as a science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logic is a fallacy my friend, it subscribes to a line of thought called intuitivism, to be clear, let's consult thefreeditionary.com:

 

1. Metaphysics. the doctrine that the reality of perceived external objects is known intuitively, without the intervention of a representative idea.

2. Metaphysics. the doctrine that knowledge rests upon axiomatic truths discerned intuitively.

 

I, on the other hand, am an experientialist:

 

1. (Philos.) The doctrine that experience, either that of ourselves or of others, is the test or criterion of general knowledge; - opposed to intuitionalism.

 

So we're pretty incompatible, but I love to discuss how intuitivist philosophy is incompatible with atheism, maybe we can discuss that some time, not now though, too much of a headache.

 

ANYHOO:

 

Observable truth isn't objective because it must first be processed through the minds filters, which contain, many filters, scripts, schemas, linguistic and conceptual frameworks before the evidence is even analyzed.

 

This truth you speak of is only a truth in an epistemological sense, it reflects a set of informational principles at a certain level of analysis (it could be an emergent informational relation that doesn't describe the underlying framework of fundamental thread of reality, which may in fact be very unintuitive, i.e. quantum entanglement, however, is useful enough to get predictions right at the level and limitations of our conscious understanding).

 

Going back to creationism, I highly rank it above abiogenesis, simply because of the lack of evidence for the multiverse (over 10^120 universes at minimum given a conservative assumption that each universe would sligly vary in physical constants, which is generous) needed to have such precise conditions for life (i.e. the cosmological constant and all the other 30 or so odd variables), things like having atoms, nuclear fusion, fission, and lots of other fun things. Plus there's that whole philosophy of mind thing, if consciousness is structural, why am I not aware of the great contents of my nervous system, also, in systems neuroscience, we treat these cells as 1's and 0's, when in reality each is a heterogeneous organic cell with mitochondria, ER's and all sorts of things... I guess what I'm getting at is the binding problem, look it up if u don't know what it means because I have a headache at the moment.

 

Then again, to be clear, I'm not talking about Allah, or Jesus, Zoroaster, Zeus, or any creator like that, I just believe that there is some sort of higher consciousness, that it has good intentions and that my internal sense of morality, in my desire to make a better world, is one that's congruent with said creator.

 

You have to learn to live with ambiguity my friend, because if you are looking for answers, there are none to be found, except those that emerge from your quasi-objective a priori criteria for delineating the nature of reality. Just enjoy the present, being here today! I strongly believe in a higher power, but if there isn't one and I disappear when I die then that's ok too!

 

Logic:

 

Science is hypotheses that explain all observable truths.

The only objective truth is observable truth.

Scientific hypotheses must be testable and therefore falsifiable.

In the event that multiple hypotheses can explain all observable truths, only those hypotheses that are scientific may be considered objective-truth worthy.

Therefore evolution>being an idiot>creationism. (Or objective truth is testable and falsifiable)

 

Sorry, but creation is fundamentally incompatible with science until such a time as a deity (him/herself) reveals itself (and of course I will then be the first, or at least one of the first, to admit).

 

Assume something to be scientifically true. For example, imagine that you didn't know that F=ma or any other simple scientific truth. You can subject it to experiments and show that in every case (or even not in every case, but in a definable subset of cases) it is true. It is thus falsifiable/subject to experimentation, and everytime an experiment confirms it, it becomes a stronger hypothesis. It is true that there are infinite equations that can explain this relationship, i.e. F=ma+C, where C equals the number of bananas I threw off my balcony today; of course with no reasoning behind choosing F=ma over F=ma+C we must choose the theory that is most supported by logic (i.e. there can be no logical reason to suggest that any force is influenced by the bananas I throw off of my balcony, therefore F=ma+C is silly).

 

Even with that silly example, it is easily falsifiable, lets just have me throw ten bananas off my balcony and see what F=.

 

Creation is not falsifiable. Creation will always say that whatever science tells us, before that was god who made it so. As we push back the understood history of the universe, you can always simply axiomatize a god to put before it. This is not science.

 

I personally believe the only truth is observable truth, supported by evidence. Otherwise, there exists no reason to not believe that I am in fact god.

 

If you care to disagree, I wonder about this one question: Is it the case that there exists a reason to not believe that one is god? Or less convoluted: How do you decide that x (pick someone, anyone, your best friend for instance, your boyfriend/girlfriend, Jon Stewart, George Clooney, Olle Jokinen, Barack Obama, Mikhail Gorbachev, Spartacus etc etc etc ) is or is not god?

 

This is my question and always has been: What is the criteria for belief? Why do you believe in x and not y?

 

I can not belittle faith in private. I have a faithful family with religion who seem to think they do good because of it. I will not belittle their faith. But rest assured that if they bring it out in public I will ask them the same question: Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to creationism, I highly rank it above abiogenesis, simply because of the lack of evidence for the multiverse (over 10^120 universes at minimum given a conservative assumption that each universe would sligly vary in physical constants, which is generous) needed to have such precise conditions for life (i.e. the cosmological constant and all the other 30 or so odd variables), things like having atoms, nuclear fusion, fission, and lots of other fun things. Plus there's that whole philosophy of mind thing, if consciousness is structural, why am I not aware of the great contents of my nervous system, also, in systems neuroscience, we treat these cells as 1's and 0's, when in reality each is a heterogeneous organic cell with mitochondria, ER's and all sorts of things... I guess what I'm getting at is the binding problem, look it up if u don't know what it means because I have a headache at the moment.

 

The precise conditions for life based on probability argument is a very nice, very famous, tremendous one until you have someone tell you why its wrong. Imagine I dealt out a shuffled standard deck of cards face up. When I'm done, I say, look, what are the odds that the deck would have been dealt in that order. Truly ridiculous in fact, something like 1 in 10^70 or thereabouts. And then lets say I do it again. Now the odds are so astronomical that the only possible conclusion would be to postulate that the cards had to have been placed in that order.

 

It is logically incorrect to decide that the odds of something having happened, after it has happened, were too astronomical for it to have happened and therefore it must not have happened without design. (On the other hand, and I don't know much physics any more, but I believe a few years ago I read about certain universal constant hypotheses about them having to be what they are, if that makes sense. I.e. them being determined by each other, and therefore it simply can not be the case that any constant is changed. That of course could be an argument for or against higher power depending on where you come into it from)

 

As for the other: the likelihood that consciousness is structural is still the most likely hypothesis. In fact, there are hypotheses, and I want to say I got this from Ramachandran's book Phantoms In the Brain or it could have been one of Sacks's books, that state that religion is also structural in that belief in a higher power simply resides in activation of certain non-dominant temporal lobe structures (I think it was non-dominant). In fact, I believe a neurologist stimulated his own temporal lobe in some way and was unable to describe his experience except to say that he at that moment began to believe in god.

 

There are statements that don't make sense to me, so I can't agree or disagree. You say something like: If consciousness is structural, how am I not aware of the contents of my nervous system. Personally, I don't see how the two have to be mutually exclusive. Either way, the binding problem and the fact that we model neuronal systems using on-off modes simply illustrates where there are gaps in the knowledge at present and what assumptions etc we have to make to bridge those gaps. The brain presents challenges to study that no other system does and has a younger body of knowledge around it. But that does not mean that we won't figure it out, and even if we don't, that does not mean that it can not be figured out.

 

 

Hopefully your head feels better soon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd add further that structural does not mean reducible to mere mechanical determinants. Life is an emergent property of matter in much the same way that consciousness is an emergent property of our brains. We can describe how memories are formed and retrieved, but that tells us little about the experience of memory or thought. Anyway. That's why neuro is so cool...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, good arguments for both sides, in the end, u just have to choose one which u feel best fits ur experiences, as there are little nuances that flaw either argument. ur right though, imo... Neuro (and for me psych as well) > the rest of medicine. Imagine how cool neuro and psych will be in 25 years when neuroscience research elucidates many more of the mind's secrets?

 

I'd add further that structural does not mean reducible to mere mechanical determinants. Life is an emergent property of matter in much the same way that consciousness is an emergent property of our brains. We can describe how memories are formed and retrieved, but that tells us little about the experience of memory or thought. Anyway. That's why neuro is so cool...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, good arguments for both sides, in the end, u just have to choose one which u feel best fits ur experiences, as there are little nuances that flaw either argument. ur right though, imo... Neuro (and for me psych as well) > the rest of medicine. Imagine how cool neuro and psych will be in 25 years when neuroscience research elucidates many more of the mind's secrets?

 

Agree strongly! Doesn't matter what you believe so long as you practice to the standards of knowledge at that time, and in the case of neuro/psych, that is going to change tremendously. Personally very excited about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well guys it looks like my thread got a little out of hand after all, and my question was never really answered straight on, so I'll just re state it...

Can I continue to smoke weed recreationally on weekends without feeling repricussions through the admissions process and in meds if i get in?

 

You Can.

 

Current and Previous students Have.

 

Right/Ethical or Wrong/Unethical? You Decide.

 

Now, Shut Up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why don't you just ask the school what their stance is on drug use in medical school.

 

Call from an unknown number, don't give your name, just ask the question and see what they say. Or, better yet- say that you are a reporter for a college paper at whatever college you want and say you are doing an editorial on drug use in school... you are asking for verification of school policy and will be conducting a poll of university students on recreational drug use and plans for different careers in medicine, law, politics etc.

 

That is your only way to know for sure.

 

good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i cant help myself:

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5it8Jw6Q05h9lZvHNvPMBpxp3itdg?docId=N0084821288579288652A

 

 

I thought this article would be fitting for this thread. Not saying I agree or disagree with it, just saying:

 

 

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Smart-People-Do-More-Drugs-Because-of-Evolution-2425

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The article looks at societal harm plus personal harm. Alcohol and Cigarettes are both legal - for economic an social reasons - and are by far the most commonly used drugs. Hence of course they cause great public harm, because they are easy to access and perfectly legal. The consequences? Diseases, violence to innocent people, decreased productivity, and health care costs through the roof. If they were illegal - their usage would in fact drop. People forget to mention that while prohibition did cause lots of gang troubles - actual alcohol intake in the USA did in fact drop alot and alchohol pathology decreased (despite millions still drinking in speakeasy's and what not). Alchohol usage in moslem countries also occurs - but at much lower rates than it probably would be if legal in those nations. That is the reason why I am against legalizing more drugs.

 

IF heroin and lsd and extasy or pot were legal - millions more would use it (not everyone of course, just it's use would noticiabley increase). In fact, the main reason why in high school i tried pot was because it had just become decriminalized, and very publicly so.

 

In regards to the theory that more intelligent people use drugs...the data used to justify it is incredibly foolish. People with >125 IQs are 3/10 of a SD to more likely use drugs than people wiht <75 IQs? <70 IQ is considered mental retardation. An IQ of 70 is 2 SD below the mean - and we know how even average intelligence people are. Of course they use less drugs - most people with mental retadation have difficulty with the most basic things - let alone seeking out and purchasing drugs with money that is very hard to come by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's nice :cool:

 

The article looks at societal harm plus personal harm. Alcohol and Cigarettes are both legal - for economic an social reasons - and are by far the most commonly used drugs. Hence of course they cause great public harm, because they are easy to access and perfectly legal. The consequences? Diseases, violence to innocent people, decreased productivity, and health care costs through the roof. If they were illegal - their usage would in fact drop. People forget to mention that while prohibition did cause lots of gang troubles - actual alcohol intake in the USA did in fact drop alot and alchohol pathology decreased (despite millions still drinking in speakeasy's and what not). Alchohol usage in moslem countries also occurs - but at much lower rates than it probably would be if legal in those nations. That is the reason why I am against legalizing more drugs.

 

IF heroin and lsd and extasy or pot were legal - millions more would use it (not everyone of course, just it's use would noticiabley increase). In fact, the main reason why in high school i tried pot was because it had just become decriminalized, and very publicly so.

 

In regards to the theory that more intelligent people use drugs...the data used to justify it is incredibly foolish. People with >125 IQs are 3/10 of a SD to more likely use drugs than people wiht <75 IQs? <70 IQ is considered mental retardation. An IQ of 70 is 2 SD below the mean - and we know how even average intelligence people are. Of course they use less drugs - most people with mental retadation have difficulty with the most basic things - let alone seeking out and purchasing drugs with money that is very hard to come by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"70% of highschool students in the U.S. have consumed alcohol, 50% have smoked cigarettes, 50% have smoked marijuana. Very vew adolescents (~6%) refrain from antisocial behaviour, and these adolescents tend to be excessively conventional, trusting, anxious, and socially incompetent - NOT WELL ADJUSTED" - Moffit, T.E., Caspi, A., ****inson, N., Silva, P., & Stanton, W. (1996). Childhood-onset versus adolescent-onset antisocial conduct problems in males: Natural hisotry from ages 3 to 18 years. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 399-424.

 

This finding suggests that those who have experimented with these things, and have made an informed decision as to accepting them/rejecting them are more well adjusted than those who blindly condemn these things. Med schools are looking for well-rounded individuals after all right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, its in the mcat, gotta learn it now... im just as much of a skeptic on abiogenesis as itimebomb is, but to deny evolution is pretty laudable, sorry laughable, my apologies, I just watched a bond movie and was feeling witty.

 

HAHAHAHAHA you have no understanding of systems biology!!!! :P :p :P

 

Once again itimebomb2, prove your claim. Give me articles from respected scientific journals that have undergone peer review, else you're just blowing steam.

 

Question: how did this switch from illegal drug use to evolution? I didn't read the wall of disagreeing text that came before all this.

 

Side note: There is no way anyone looking to be a doctor these days can avoid evolution. ITS IN THE MCAT MATERIAL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well there's that eternal question: what's it like to be someone else, and then there's a peculiarly simple answer, psychiatric medications... they'll give you interesting insights into why people might not necessarily agree with you, or have different coping strategies, or be more impatient, or perhaps differ in aggressiveness. We are monolithic by our very nature in that we only experience our slowly changing consciousness, but to have this radically changed, not in a psychedelic sort of way, but more in an emotive sense, can give you tremendous insight into the different spectrum of emotions others feel on a normal basis, henceforth allowing you to be far more accepting of others behaviour as not necessarily a product of their judgement, but of their judgement as a reaction to how their life situation has biologically designed their brain... people in different states, with the same underlying personalities will respond in different ways.

 

look at someone with chronic pain for example, they're often very irritable and have low patience... the same is true for many people with generalized anxiety disorder, which is less visible; however, just having the awareness that none of us experience the world in the same way allows you the patience to investigate why the person is behaving the way they are, rather than using your own couscous experience as the interpretive medium, which may make their behaviour seem illogical and erratic.

 

"70% of highschool students in the U.S. have consumed alcohol, 50% have smoked cigarettes, 50% have smoked marijuana. Very vew adolescents (~6%) refrain from antisocial behaviour, and these adolescents tend to be excessively conventional, trusting, anxious, and socially incompetent - NOT WELL ADJUSTED" - Moffit, T.E., Caspi, A., ****inson, N., Silva, P., & Stanton, W. (1996). Childhood-onset versus adolescent-onset antisocial conduct problems in males: Natural hisotry from ages 3 to 18 years. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 399-424.

 

This finding suggests that those who have experimented with these things, and have made an informed decision as to accepting them/rejecting them are more well adjusted than those who blindly condemn these things. Med schools are looking for well-rounded individuals after all right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...