Re: Tzeentch's Thread of Everchanging Topics

by **Amaryl** Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:29 pm

Jeanpierre/Ragnilde wrote:
Amaryl wrote:
additionally simply saying; I want X size of a sample before I find the study acceptable! Is just silly, without motivation on the make-up of those 30k and why 30k is better then say 20k...

Well I calculated it once based on some sample rules for statistics. It's the square root of the world population divided by its deviation I believe (2?). Which yields about 20K or 40K (damn memory...)
The idea there is that only if there is enough research on such a number, do I think it's viable to draw a conclusion for the world population, meaning the conclusions of such research would be viable anywhere. But of course, if we're going to differentiate between different groups of people and plants, smaller samples could be used to draw more region-bound conclusions.
But that would only make it even harder to make this discussion... "Yup, in the Netherlands you'd actually get healthy from smoking pot, but in England you die from it". Well that's just joking, but it requires more nuances than a large population examination.

So are you saying 30k people that smoke weed is an accurate sample number? Or are you saying you want to test 30k people whom are a representation of the earth's populace out of which X are pot smokers, where X a % equal to the % of pot-smokers world-wide? and then further divide that X into Z and Y for casual and addicted pot-smokers?

and then is that 30k people just one group? what is the control group? is it a double-blind test? etc, etc.. etc.. etc.. etc..

Which is why simply saying we need atleast 30k people in the test! Is wrong.

Jeanpierre wrote:
Amaryl wrote:
Yes, since unequivocally claiming something to be true based one test is the epitome of the scientific method, especially when conducting research mostly based on statistics.

I'm claiming the research to be true. I'm claiming their conclusions correct. But their conclusions aren't saying "Canabis is good". Their conclusion is "in these circumstances, these conditions, we observed this with a notable link". When they translate that back to human language, you can clearly see they speak of "indications" in a direction, without drawing conclusions to the benefits of Canabis on a large population.
Their research does not prove that. There is no research proving Canabis to be -good- for the people. There's indications that show some beneficial factors for some cases of cancer and there's indications of undesirable side effects such as memory being affected and heart attacks. The difference between indication and proven benefit at a large scale is where I'm pointing at.

So at which point in this reasonable deduction did you decide to coin it:

Jeanpierre wrote:Those researches may claim to be scientific, but I call it an educated guess.

especially the part where you decided that the actual reasonable scientific conclusion based on the scientific research, was an educated guess, solely because they actually know that a link to those two doesn't actually unequivocally prove that there is actually is a link?

Why not simply call it a good scientific conclusion(which it is) based on the material, but that it is inconclusive to actually assert anything? Instead of drawing into question the scientific integrity of the researchers in general?

Jeanpierre wrote:
Amaryl wrote:And yet according to the exact same standards there isn't undeniable proof that the default opinion is actually true either..

What's the default opinion?
I have no intention of agreeing with any default opinion without proof that it is right.

Well as you said:

Jeanpierre wrote:Let me put it differently. Until I see an undeniable proof of the opposite, I see no reason to accept something with presumed side effects in our society based on the research currently available. Given more study, more indications and more knowledge on both the benefits and side effects, I would certainly re-evaluate my position.

That's your default opinion.

The point being, you've formed your opinion once about something, based on information just as reliable as the research from the opposing side. Yet you want undeniable proof that you're wrong before accepting something in your society. Yet you don't demand the same undeniable proof for denying it.

by **Jeanpierre** Thu Jun 21, 2012 3:45 pm

No. I'm demanding undeniable proof before I accept it as a happy story. I'm also demanding undeniable proof before I accept it as a sad story. I'm a bitch to both sides! Of all people, I expected to find you in that camp! lol Smile

Neither proof for either side is delivered, so I see no reason to accept either side based on the delivered studies.

I wrote "Presumed" intentionally because, just like its benefits, its not sufficiently proven scientifically. I don't "assume" the side effects are guaranteed or even high risk. I don't see the conflict there.

My own experience has indicated me to be cautious, but I'm fully willing to acknowledge there are factors involved that haven't been investigated or observed in any strutured or scientific manner. And that my own observation is hardly scientific or reliable. That's also why I won't let it contribute to my decision on whether or not it ought to be legalized.

"Why not simply call it a good scientific conclusion(which it is) based on the material, but that it is inconclusive to actually assert anything?"

Right. I'll henceforth call it a good scientific conclusion (which it is) based on the material, but that it is inconclusive to actually assert anything.
Let it be known, ladies and gents, I'll be calling it such, and naught other!

It's what I meant basically.

by **Amaryl** Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:19 pm

Jeanpierre/Ragnilde wrote:No. I'm demanding undeniable proof before I accept it as a happy story. I'm also demanding undeniable proof before I accept it as a sad story. I'm a bitch to both sides! Of all people, I expected to find you in that camp! lol

Dude, ofcourse i'm in that camp, I'm being a bitch here exactly because it amuses me. duh!

"Why not simply call it a good scientific conclusion(which it is) based on the material, but that it is inconclusive to actually assert anything?"

Right. I'll henceforth call it a good scientific conclusion (which it is) based on the material, but that it is inconclusive to actually assert anything.
Let it be known, ladies and gents, I'll be calling it such, and naught other!

It's what I meant basically.

I am glad to have educated you in such a manner to not sound derogatory towards people that honestly deserve your contempt.

fuck social sciences. do some real work!

by **Shaelyssa** Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:19 pm

Feydor wrote:
Spoiler:

Oh wow thanks a lot!!! really helped to clear things up but I gotta say I'm still pretty skeptical, there are good arguments on both sides so it's pretty hard for me to come to a decision. And when I asked if it's worth it, I meant is it worth the potential adverse health side-effects, whatever they might be :p. I know at least with me I wouldn't want to smoke anything cause I'm afraid it'd mess up my lungs and any hopes I have of competing on an amateur level

But anyways, what long history of cannabis? All I know is that Sufi's/old medieval Muslims used it to get closer to God and that old Persians loved hashish :p

And no, those guys who I knew who started smoking weed were pretty hard working, but they just sort of lost all interest in school in general. One of them was a really talented at theater work but then poof he lost all interest. I'm not saying it was because of the weed, but still ... :p

Maybe it's just me though cause I know with me personally I don't really like treating myself so I don't see the point in it but hmm I still dunno. When I think weed I just think lazy douchebag lol :p I know it's obviously not true I just think shisha/smoking/weed/cigarettes whatever to just be general douchebaggy things (especially shisha!!! I don't know if you have them in the UK but shisha cafés are so effing disgusting)

Just to clarify, I dont think people who smoke or whatever are douchebags.

by **Shaelyssa** Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:22 pm

And the dialogue between JP and Amaryl was pretty insightful and interesting too, thanks guys and well done!! open discussion is always a good thing +1

by **Amaryl** Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:27 pm

Well Shae, the answer is sooo very simple.

If you don't feel comfortable doing it...

don't do it...

and if you want to try it, but don't want to smoke it, make a space-cake.

by **Shaelyssa** Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:33 pm

Ya I'm not planning on doing it, I was just curious as to why anyone would do it I guess, although I don't really get why some people do a lot of things

Watch me go to uni and become an alcoholic sexcrazed drug addict though lol ...

by **Kristeas Sunbinder** Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:40 pm

Shaelyssa wrote:Ya I'm not planning on doing it, I was just curious as to why anyone would do it I guess, although I don't really get why some people do a lot of things

Watch me go to uni and become an alcoholic sexcrazed drug addict though lol ...

Then Rasonal will complaing about you being a hippy.

by **Jeanpierre** Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:18 pm

Amaryl wrote:Dude, ofcourse i'm in that camp, I'm being a bitch here exactly because it amuses me. duh!

The difference between you and me, is that I'm a skeptic who ends up trolling and you're a troll, posing as a skeptic. Laughing

by **Shaelyssa** Thu Jun 21, 2012 6:24 pm

In other news, Kuwait is the fattest country in the world (kinda) and the government FINALLY dissolved our super corrupted parliament, only to reinstate the older, slightly less corrupted assembly, but half of them resigned straight away - I think they're holding new elections soon which is awesome

by **Amaryl** Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:04 pm

Jeanpierre/Ragnilde wrote:
Amaryl wrote:Dude, ofcourse i'm in that camp, I'm being a bitch here exactly because it amuses me. duh!

The difference between you and me, is that I'm a skeptic who ends up trolling and you're a troll, posing as a skeptic.

Please, i'm not a troll, i'm a free spirit fluttering on a summer breeze filling the air with pollen until naught remains but sneezing people.

trolls just sulk under a bridge.