[[Your “reasonmable assumption” does not constitute scientific proof. ]]
Really? Because you are arguing assumptions are valid disqualifications of scientific conclusions- As my last post said reasoanble assumptions DO constitute scientific proof- Cases established beyond a reasonable doubt DO hold up in court, DO stand for scientific discoveries ALL THE TIME- How about makiing coutner arguments without hte petty little insults, huh? Do you think you might be capable of that?
[[There’s no assumption in “might”. ]]
wow- ok-
[[So it’s irrelevant to the current discussion of longer term effects. ]]
When did the covnersation turn to long term effects? The covnersation was abotu whether drug use causes an incvrease in frequency of events- not abotu hte long term effects of drug use- that was never even brought up until now- you keep movign hte goalpost-
Another of your misunderstandings - what I'm saying, and all those educated in the scientific method know, is that if there are multiple hypotheses that explain a given observation (such as a "strong relationship") then that observation doesn't prove any one of those hypotheses. This is what the researchers in the first link YOU posted said, as I quoted twice.
As my last post said reasoanble assumptions DO constitute scientific proof- Cases established beyond a reasonable doubt DO hold up in court, DO stand for scientific discoveries ALL THE TIME
Are you mis-equating "reasoanble assumption" and "established beyond a reasonable doubt"? Or are you claiming that "reasoanble assumptions [...] DO stand for scientific discoveries ALL THE TIME"? If the latter, I challenge you to provide a single example of a scientific discovery announced on the basis of nothing more than a "reasoanble assumption."