[[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.]]
I understand htis, but again, where’s the evidence that the frequency of events wasn’t icnreased whn on the drugs? if 50% or even 40% had icnreased events, then the magnitude was infact strong- We went from saying there wasn’t a sginifcant increase, to ‘the frequency of the icnrease wasn’t very large (which basically is sayign hte same hting-)
[[remember you claimed the results showed that the events were not rare. ]]
Again, the cited source states that htere is a strong connection- I’m goign b y what the article says- if there’s a strong connectio nthen that correctly implies that there must have ben an icnrease in events i norder to come up with hte ‘strong connection’ clasim- if only a few peopel in the study showed an increase, I don’t beleive the researchers would have stated a strong connection and woudl have infact stated the opposite- Generally thsoe who do testign are unbiased or do so in an unbiased way because their careers and reputations are o nthe line
you are saying that “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.”
I’m goign to have to tackle this after my nap- my mind is tired right now- but basically the one can’t happen without hte other- if there’s a ‘strong relationship between use of drugs and increased events, then it must be true that the researchers foudn a strong increase in the frequency of events
[[Whether a study is longitudinal has nothing to do with whether it establishes a link.]]
Egads, your previosu post made mention of the fact that it wasn’t a logitudinal study, therefore it wasn’t vaslid- basically was the claim-
[[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.]]
Good golly- Statign that htere is a strong connection is makign hte claim that the one causes anm increase in frequency-
[[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.
]]
Mmmm yes, you’re arguign in circles- and changign hte goalpost from psot to post- I’ve asked several tiems now for soem kidn of evidence that using drugs didn’t icnrease the frequency of events- such as you claiemd at the beginnign of the argument- and yo’ure goign round and round avoiding providing any evidence and simpyl restatign claims on wiki that has nothign to do the findings- there’s a strong cennection- I didn’t make hte claim- the article cited did- if you have evidenece that usign drugs doesn’t correrlate to increase in frequency, I’d be itnerested i nseeing it- but talkign in cuircles and then claiming I am ‘uneducated’ and runnming away isn’t really very polite- I’ve kept it civil- and have asked a simpel question and have not received an answer yet-
[[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.]]
Where the heck does thsi fit into the argument? Do you have evidence that only .01% of drug takers had icnrease i nfrequency? or are you simply just guessing? I didn’t read any such thing- I read that there was a ‘strong connection’
If you don’t have evidence as to how many actually had increased frequencies, that’s fine- just say so- but the report is indicating a ‘Strong connection’ between the two- Common sense tells you thatr a strong connection shows that it’s much more than .01% icnrease in events- (or whateverl ow figure you want to throw out urnealted to the article)
[[I will make no further posts in this exchange.]]
If you can’t answer the question I aske,d then fine- because All I’m gettign fro myou is an irrelevent argument to apaprently prove thigns that were not stated i nthe article-
Not sure why you’re gettign bent over by the simple question? Is there evidence that icnreased use doesn’t correlate to increased events? The study seems to indicate there is a connection between the two-
[[in an apparently futile attempt to dispel one of your many misunderstandings about scientific analysis and findings.]]
ou know, you can claim anythign you like- it doesn’t make it so- if you want to get nasty without providing any answers to back up your claims, then whatever, I tried to keep this civil, but your trying to drag this into the gutter with petty insults- You’ve faield to ansdwer the simpel question- and you’re accusing me of failing to ‘udnerstand’? whatever dude- if you don’t know the answer to the simpel quesiton, there’s no neded to get nasty about it=-
I understand htis, but again, where’s the evidence that the frequency of events wasn’t icnreased whn on the drugs?
Who said it wasn't increased? The point is your mistaken belief that high correlation implies large magnitude of increase.
remember you claimed the results showed that the events were not rare.
if only a few peopel in the study showed an increase, I don’t beleive the researchers would have stated a strong connection
That's because you still won't understand how scientific analysis is done and reported. What they reported was a "strong relationship" - that is, a relatively high correlation.
if there’s a ‘strong relationship between use of drugs and increased events, then it must be true that the researchers foudn a strong increase in the frequency of events
Simply wrong. Educate yourself.
Whether a study is longitudinal has nothing to do with whether it establishes a link.
Egads, your previosu post made mention of the fact that it wasn’t a logitudinal study, therefore it wasn’t vaslid- basically was the claim-
No, that was yet another of your misunderstandings. Here's what I actually said: "studies that were not longitudinal and so don't know whether the symptoms followed or preceded the marijuana use." Not a word about the validity of the study - just about the falsity of your conclusions.
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.
Good golly- Statign that htere is a strong connection is makign hte claim that the one causes anm increase in frequency-
Re-read the wiki - even a large increase in frequency wouldn't establish a cause-and-effect connection.
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.
Mmmm yes, you’re arguign in circles- and changign hte goalpost from psot to post-
No, you keep trying to impose your incorrect preconceptions on what I'm saying.
I’ve asked several tiems now for soem kidn of evidence that using drugs didn’t icnrease the frequency of events- such as you claiemd at the beginnign of the argument-
No, I never claimed that.
and simpyl restatign claims on wiki that has nothign to do the findings-
It has everything to do with dispelling your misunderstandings of how scientific analysis is done and reported.
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.
Where the heck does thsi fit into the argument? Do you have evidence that only .01% of drug takers had icnrease i nfrequency?
How it fits is: "strong relationship" does not imply the increase in frequency was large as you keep claiming.