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.
"Among the 44 percent of teens who admitted to smoking pot, use of the drug at age 16 was linked to the development of psychotic symptoms at age 19. But the researchers also found that where kids began to display signs of psychosis at an early age, they then tended to start using marijuana in their later teens --for them, the psychosis came before the drug use."
"As with previous studies, the researchers weren't able to establish that marijuana use is directly causing an increased risk of psychosis, or vice versa. Their point is that since some teens with psychotic symptoms seem more likely to self-medicate with marijuana, it could be confounding the data that suggests pot somehow causes psychosis." TheAtlantic.com
[[Re-read the wiki - even a large increase in frequency wouldn’t establish a cause-and-effect connection.]]
I did read the site and hte explanations there are assinine- they are comparing controlled studies to casual observences i nthe uneducated public- they are insinuating htat because soemoen discovers that going to bed with hteir shoes on that they wake with a headache, it can’t be assumed the shoes cause the headache ‘because it’s POSSIBLE the person MAY HAVE BEEN drunk too’
The variables are known within study groups- there aren’t any ‘gotchas’ thrown in later to throw the study for a loop- IF enough peopel were studied who DID NOT DRINK and who got headaches ONLY when wearign shoes to bed, and who had NO heradaches whern not wearign htem to bed, and if the study was large enough to show that hte majority were experiencign increased headaches only when wearign shoes- then of course a strogn relationship is noted- and thel ikely cause of hte icnrease in gheadache incidents is beign caused shoe wearing at bedtime
[[The point is your mistaken belief that high correlation implies large magnitude of increase.]]
You are claiming that it must be low magnitude of increased frequency- Where are you gettign htis data from? A discovery of a strong relationship between drug use and an increase in episodes woudl not be given if only a couple of people per 100 or whatever were expriencing the increase- the ratio of folks experiencing increased events to thsoe who did not woudl be low- not high If the study had meant that the ‘strong connection’ was only referrign to a few individuals, they woudl have been ethically required to mention this- they did not mention it-
you keep inferrign that whiel many might have experienced the icnrease, that hte increase ‘could be low magnitude of icnrease (I assume you mean increase of stregth of the events-) Yuor exampels makes htis clear [[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. ]]- There is nothign i nthe report that I saw that indicates the study was abotu hte STRENGTH of the episodes
[[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.]]
There’s nothign to educate myself about- if there wasn’t a strogn increase i nthe frequency of events, they woudl not have said there is a strong relationship between drug use and icnreased events- if only a few peopel experienced icnrease in events, it woudl have been made clear i nthe report- important facts liek that are not left out of responsible studies-
[[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. ]]
You knopw what? Now you’re just playing games- You knw the point was that you began by implying the study wasn’t valid because it wassn’t doen logitudinally, then you later switched to sayign logitudinal studies do not prove anything- You know ful lwell thep oint was that you are sayign one thing in one post, then movign hte goalpost in yoyur next post-
[[It has everything to do with dispelling your misunderstandings of how scientific analysis is done and reported.]]
how is that again? By readign exampels that have nothign to do with actual scientific studies? This is your ‘scientific’ argument? Which exampel shoudl I be looking at aagain? The following one too that has NIOTHING to do with observable results?
Example 2 Young children who sleep with the light on are much more likely to develop myopia in later life. Therefore, sleeping with the light on causes myopia.
What has a long term devlopmentof a condition got to do with an immediately observable and reproducible cause and effect study?
[[How it fits is: “strong relationship” does not imply the increase in frequency]]
It does imply that when the study does not indicate they meant the strogn relationship was only speakign abotu a person or two out of the bunch- IF that had been the case, the study woudl have made that clear- and woudl not have used such a generallized blanket statement-