What Happened to Our Country?

Townhall.com ^ | January 21, 2013 | Bruce Bialosky

[CottShop]

[[No, they’re using simple examples to make a point about what can and can’t be concluded from correlations.]]

No- they are makign arguments using wholly unrelated examples- A study is NOTHING LIKE anectodotal experiences- shame you won’t udnerstand that

[[you began by implying the study wasn’t valid because it wassn’t doen logitudinally,

Wrong.

then you later switched to sayign logitudinal studies do not prove anything

Wrong.]]

Ok so now htis has devolved to you now sayign you weren’t implying thsoe things- whatever- I posted where you said and implied both those things-

[JustSayNoToNannies]

"Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and obesity levels have increased sharply. Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes obesity."

Another assinine comparison as there was no study done to determien whetrher CO2 causes an icnrease in weight- only an assinine assumption that the two ‘might be connected’ with NO studty to determien anything

Wrong as usual - the study was the collection of the raw data and the determination of the correlation ... like many marijuana/psychosis studies.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

No, they’re using simple examples to make a point about what can and can’t be concluded from correlations.

No-

Yes.

I posted where you said and implied both those things-

Wrong.

If all you have left is repetitions of your ignorant misunderstandings, I'm done here.

[CottShop]

[[If the statistics of a study show that teens who smoke pot have psychosis,]]

that is NOT what the study indicated- it indicated an increase in events-

[[If the statistics of a study show that teens who smoke pot have psychosis, you announce it’s evidence for your agenda.]]

That’s not even remotely close to what I was saying- and you’re accusing me of twisting htings?

[[When information from the same study reveals teens had psychosis before they ever used pot,]]

Again, that’s not what the study said- I said in my first reply to you that words were improtant- The studies indicated that SOME kids may have been predisposed- I eplied to that statement

[[Whether this study proves the evils of pot or is lies spread by pot activists, it appears, changes strictly according to your convenience and the desire to prove your position.]]

Yeah, ok-

[[Reminds me of global warming...they’ll take one page out of a study to support their claims and people who insist on reading the rest of the text are a menace to society.]]

Again, read the study, it wasn’t abotu hwether peopel who have psychosis smoke pot- it was abotu hte effect of drugs on events

[[So since you’re definitely on the prohibition trail for drugs that induce mental dysfunctions,]]

I am? I said that where again? Thansk for informaing me, I wasn’t aware I was on any trail-

I siomply indicated that the article appeared to be posted with a pro drug bent- because it wasn’t carefulyl worded and sloppily written- Not sure how that puts me on the ‘prohibition trail’ but whatever-

[CottShop]

[[you began by implying the study wasn’t valid because it wassn’t doen logitudinally,

Wrong.

then you later switched to sayign logitudinal studies do not prove anything

Wrong.]]

Wrong? Really?

[[Then you first say “Again, no such longitudinal studies have been done - the results under discussion compared one set of people who used marijuana to a different set of people who didn’t. “

But in the next breath say “Whether a study is longitudinal has nothing to do with whether it establishes a link.”]]

[CottShop]

[[Wrong as usual - the study was the collection of the raw data and the determination of the correlation]]

There was an actual study abotu whether cO2 causes obesity huh? Or are you saying there were seperate studies on CO2 AND on obesity without any connection between the two?

[CottShop]

[[No, they’re using simple examples to make a point about what can and can’t be concluded from correlations.
No-

Yes.]]

Wow- AQgain- Personal ANECDOTAL claims and scientifically conducted studies have absoltuely NOTHING in common and the compaison of the one to the other in order to make some assinien claim is well, assinine- Controlled studies take into account variables, ANECTDOTAL experiences do NOT and peopel often draw wrong conclusions BECAUSE they do nNOT KNOW the variables that coudl effect the results they assume- Beyond reasonable doubt is a term used in courts of law- it establishes facts beyond a reasoanble doubt and so do scientific studies- ANECDOTAL experiences do NOT- Wiki invents ANECDOTAL scenarios and claims scientiif studies can not establish beyond reasoanble doubt cases because someoen has decided ANECDOTAL experiences are ‘Scientifically valid arguments agaisnt concluding beyond reasonable doubt cases’?

Just wow! (Now comes the ‘brilliant’ response ‘Wrong’ fro myou I suppose, without any explaaination why it’s ‘wrong’? Though I wouldn’t stand or fall on a wiki posting if I were you-)

[CottShop]

[[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-

[CottShop]

[[No, they’re using simple examples to make a point about what can and can’t be concluded from correlations.
No-

Yes.

Wrong.

If all you have left is repetitions of your ignorant misunderstandings, I’m done here.]]

Lol- pot calling hte kettle black

[fattigermaster]

Your reasoning is incomprehensible and your posts are nearly illegible. Given your “drug warrior” status, are you strictly obeying the dosage recommendations from Doctor Happy?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Because you are arguing assumptions are valid disqualifications of scientific conclusions-

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."

[CottShop]

[[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.]]

There were no mutiple hypothesis stated- and since you seem incapable of posting without insulting I’ll stoop to a level your post at- In your ingorance of hte issue- You post a link to a site on the WEB that has irrelevent exampels of anecdotal experiences OUTSIDE of any sorts of scientific studies and apaprently feel that it’s an adequate argument against drawing reasonable conclusions Simply because variable can be HYPOTHESISED in regards to a study does NOT negate the fact that the study shows a strogn relationship- You are insinuating that a site that essentailly claism that because there are no absolutes, reasonable conclusiosn can not be made- and that’s simpyl horsecrap=- reasonable conlcusiosn ARE made ALL THE TIME in science and law- when enough reasoanble evidence is shown, then a connection CAN be made UNTIL another study coems along and shows that hte previous study was wrong- thats’ the way it work both in science and law- Detectives gather evidence, present it to a lawyer who makes the case that the evidnece is enough to show guolt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt- Jurors work on the basis that more evidence showing guiklt or innocence is enough to make a judgement on a case of guilt or innocence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ Your wiki site however apaprwently thinks it knows more about science aqnd law than the actual sicence and law practicioners-

[[Are you mis-equating “reasoanble assumption” and “established beyond a reasonable doubt”?]]

I’ll answerr this in a similar fashion to the way you have answered previously

NO! You’re ignorance of the meanings of terms is apparent, and it’s not my job to spell out the meanings to you- I’m sticking my figners in my ears and saying ‘na na na na boo boo from here on out-

[[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.”]]

Again, I’ll answer in the fashion you do

It’s not my job to educate you and until you educate yourself on the subject, I’ll never post again because your obvious ignorance isn’t worth answering (but of course I’ll keep posting- I just like hearing myswelf say that) (I could also give just one word to show that reaqsonable assumptions [Even though they are anythign BUT reasonable, conciderign that they violate natural law- but that doesn’t stop scientists from claiming they’ve establiushed hteir case beyond a reasoanble doubt-] Are used all the time in science - however, revertign back to your fashion of argument “I’ts not my job to educate soemoen who is ignorant cocnernign the issues beign discussed and I’m takign my ball and goign home!

[JustSayNoToNannies]

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.

There were no mutiple hypothesis stated

Yes there were, in the first link YOU posted - and I've already quoted the text twice.

a site that essentailly claism that because there are no absolutes, reasonable conclusiosn can not be made

Yet another misunderstanding - and a particularly grotesque/comical one.

[CottShop]

[[your posts are nearly illegible.]]

I do appologize for that- I think fast, type fast, and my fingers are dyslexic-like (some have suggested it’s a neurological problem (along iwth just plain sloppy typing- but you’ll not certain words are almost always typed backerds or discombobulated- suggesting a problems- I even say words messed up too- certain words quite frequently

[[Given your “drug warrior” status,]]

First I’m a ‘drug pohibitionist’ and now I’m a “Drug Warrior’? Geeez- no wodner I’m Skitzo (and so am I)[Old joke- Roses are red, I don’t know why, I’m skitzophrenic, and so am I]

[[Your reasoning is incomprehensible]]

It’s not really, it’s just hard to decipher due to the myriad spelling mistakes n cobbed togehr thoguhts- but hte intent and meanings of hte posts and statements are sound-

The basic premise of th argument I’m havign with Nannies is that just because a Site says that you can’t coem to reasonable conclusions becasue there ‘may be’ variables that are unknown’ is bunk, and My contnetion is that if the study reposrts that their’s a strong connectio nbetween drug use and icnreased psychotic events, that there’s NO reason to ASSUME that there must be variables unnaccoutned for, and no reason to ASSUME that the study results must ONLY be discussing the idea that only a coupel of folks experienced that increase as it’s is a reasoanble assumption that the researchers woudl have qualified their ‘strong connection’ with hte idea that it was only observed in rare cases liek Nannies suggested- That’s the crux of the discussion

[JustSayNoToNannies]

[huldah1776:] my progressive liberal textbooks. They are scared to death of the psychotic, LSD-like damage it does. [...]

“With higher doses and with certain unstable or susceptible individuals, marijuana can produce extreme euphoria, hilarity, and overtalkativeness, but it can also produce intense anxiety and depression as well as delusions, hallucination, and other psychotic-like experiences. Evidenced suggests a strong relationship between daily marijuana use and the occurrence of psychotic symptoms (Raphael et al., 2005 = Comorbidity: Cannabis and complexity. J. Psychiat. Pract., 11(3), 161-76.)

Text: Butcher, J.N., Mineka, S., Hooley, J, Abnormal Psych 14th edition.

Thanks for the hard facts! They don't sound "scared to death" - and "a strong relationship" doesn't mean that one causes the other.

The authors have just sent me a copy of that paper (I'll post it to Google Docs if anyone's interested) - which acknowledges that a causal link has not been established:

"A number of hypotheses have been put forward to explain the association between cannabis use and psychosis. The most widely proposed hypotheses are:

• that cannabis use precipitates psychosis among those vulnerable to developing the disorder
• that cannabis use exacerbates symptoms or prolongs the illness
• that those with schizophrenia, or a vulnerability to it, use cannabis to self-medicate psychiatric symptoms or medication side-effects
• that the association results from either common risk factors (such as personality or family history of schizophrenia) or confounding variables (such as drug use or poor adherence to antipsychotic medication).

"Only a few longitudinal prospective studies have examined these hypotheses, and these studies have had methodological problems."