[[The quote, not posted by me,]]
Sorery- I’m answerign sweveral threads at once- I assuemd you had posted it-
[[were not longitudinal and so don’t know whether the symptoms followed or preceded the marijuana use.]]
Huh? They take hte drugs, an increase in events is recorded, and they can’t tell if it folows or not? That just doesn’t make sense- Are you claiming th reserchers or study group leaders saw phsychotic events takign place, and simpyl wodnered whetrher the recent use of drugs was to blame or not? or did they actually record that a person with few events who later took drugs experienced more events, then later quit druigs and experienced less again?
[[No, the magnitude of the increase in frequency - remember you claimed the results showed that the events were not rare.]]
no, I claimed, based o nthe article that was posted- that the study showed that there was a strong connection
[[No, the magnitude of the increase in frequency]]
That isn’t what the statement says- it clearly says the magnititude of the EFFECT- not the magnitude of the events of the effect-
[[Again, no such longitudinal studies have been done]]
you keep sayign that hte study cited was not longitudinal, what is your evidnce that it wasn’t? (Note, I’m not doubting you- I’m simpyl askign if you know that they were unable to link the two- it woudl appear fro mthe article that they ifnact were able to link the two (drug use and increase in frequency)
[[the results under discussion compared one set of people who used marijuana to a different set of people who didn’t.]]
That may be true, however, to be an ethical test, it had to also take into concideration that hte peopel usign hte drugs had fewer eventss when not using, and more when using ‘compared with peopel not usign drugs ever-’ (Again, I don’t know the technicalities with hte case- but I’m sure ther researchers were brilliant enough to know that you can’t just make claims without doign VERY CAREFUL studies- the wiki site’s arguments are really only applicable to ‘studies’ doen by unethical evaluators who care nothignm abotu scientific integrity- so if we’re goign to make this claim abotu the research cited, then that’s a pretty serious accusation to make- it’s akin to makign an accusation of ethical violations and itnentional deciet (Unless of course they made it perfectly clear that they did NOT study thsoe folsk both before and after drug use and noted the results)
Anyways- as I aid, I’m not famiklair with the case- if you have evidence that they didn’t study the drug users both before and after, I’d be itnerested to see it-
Huh? They take hte drugs, an increase in events is recorded
As I've explained, that's not the research that was done.
No, the magnitude of the increase in frequency - remember you claimed the results showed that the events were not rare.
no, I claimed, based o nthe article that was posted- that the study showed that there was a strong connection
As I've explained, the strength of the relationship is the size of the correlation coefficient, which has nothing to do with the magnitude of the increase in frequency. If all test subjects who take chemical Z grow in height by exactly 0.001 inches, that's a maximum strength of relationship but a low magnitude of increase.
No, the magnitude of the increase in frequency
That isn’t what the statement says- it clearly says the magnititude of the EFFECT- not the magnitude of the events of the effect-
"Effect" was not the researchers' term but mine, in an apparently futile attempt to dispel one of your many misunderstandings about scientific analysis and findings.
you keep sayign that hte study cited was not longitudinal, what is your evidnce that it wasn’t? (Note, I’m not doubting you- I’m simpyl askign if you know that they were unable to link the two
Whether a study is longitudinal has nothing to do with whether it establishes a link.
the results under discussion compared one set of people who used marijuana to a different set of people who didn’t.
I’m sure ther researchers were brilliant enough to know that you can’t just make claims without doign VERY CAREFUL studies- the wiki site’s arguments are really only applicable to ‘studies’ doen by unethical evaluators who care nothignm abotu scientific integrity
No, the Wikipedia article simply explains what can and can't be concluded from a strong correlation - which is why the researchers never claimed to have established a cause-and-effect connection. That false claim is yours and yours alone.
I've tried my best to explain these matters to you, to little avail. It's frankly not my job to educate you on scientific analysis and findings - so until and unless you post something that indicates you've bothered to educate yourself, I will make no further posts in this exchange.