[soulofmischief]

It'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.

[wat10000]

It's either unfounded as written (it might be sensible with more support), or it needs a notion of responsibility that's so broad as to be useless.

Everything in your past light cone alters your thoughts to some degree. To be considered responsible for discoveries, the alteration needs to be significant and be in a way that the discovery wouldn't have happened without it. Significance is pretty much a given, there are plenty of drugs that significantly alter thoughts. But "wouldn't have happened without it" is a big assumption that, at the very least, is not supported by the argument I was replying to.

[soulofmischief]

I agree, but it's difficult to make the criteria objective. "I was drunk last night and I realized X..." vs "Last night, a molecule of alcohol hit just the right neuron and fired off a chain of thoughts that led to a discovery"... Aren't both valid?

[devmor]

If there's no evidentiary reason to assume causal relationship, I would say that's a useless distinction, personally.

There's just as much reason to assume that if you didn't drink at all, you'd have thought of it sooner.