So, are you saying that driving while high at any level isn't dangerous?

hey i just did a study with the 10 people sitting in the breakroom now, i asked them how many have driven high and the ones that did all were fine and never had an accident. its not the best, but its the only study i have to go with

This is a great example of Boilermaker Rick arguing style.

This is false. They count for something.

It would be like if you were doing a test on Purdue grads (except an unknown number of them might have gone to different schools) and saying "Well, its the best we have!"

This is false. They count for something.
I can give you countless examples of studies that only provide some amount of proof without being definitive. This is how science evolves. We figure out the current best answer and seek better ways to either prove or disprove it especially in regards to the brain which we have a very poor understanding of still.

Since it was brought up earlier, we don't even have a great explanation as to why we sleep. That doesn't mean the studies and knowledge of sleep are invalid.

Is that a yes or a no, because it completely changes the discussion with you.

If you don't think it is, then I understand why my posts are so wrong.
If you think it is, then ultimately you are simply arguing about how we each got to the same conclusion.

I asked myself the same question and found the same results you did. The study has been peer-reviewed!

It is literally impossible to have "some amount of proof". Thank you.

anything serving as such evidence:

Im confident that a breathalyzer type thing that is accurate and measures recent hours can be invented. Ill be good with that.

Yes, but that is not what is happenning here. It's not some evidence. Its zero.

It would be like doing a placebo test but you arent sure who took the placebo and who took the real pill. It's worthless.

We can compare groups. We have one group that has THC in their system. We have another one that does not have THC in their system. Information can be gained by comparing the two. When used in conjunction with other well known science, you can make some conclusions.

I would say that "proof" is the most widely misunderstood concept in all of science. It has a technical definition (a logical demonstration that certain conclusions follow from certain assumptions) that is strongly at odds with how it is used in casual conversation, which is closer to simply "strong evidence for something." There is a mismatch between how scientists talk and what people hear because scientists tend to have the stronger definition in mind. And by that definition, science never proves anything! So when we are asked "What is your proof that we evolved from other species?" or "Can you really prove that climate change is caused by human activity?" we tend to hem and haw rather than simply saying "Of course we can." The fact that science never really proves anything, but simply creates more and more reliable and comprehensive theories of the world that nevertheless are always subject to update and improvement, is one of the key aspects of why science is so successful.

I love how you've decided conclusions can be made based on a completely arbitrary "study"

I love how you've decided conclusions can be made based on a completely arbitrary "study"

Thank you, but I asked you for PROOF that marijuana users are more likely to get in an accident. I didn't ask for the definition of proof, because I already know it. In fact, let me help you out with your own link..

The definition you quoted is the second part, which uses the obvious qualifier such. In this case "such evidence" is referring to the first definition in the link - evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. My only guess as to why you omitted the most important part of the definition is that it wont let you use evidence and proof interchangeably, which is apparently what you thought was ok to do.

Physicist Sean Carroll goes further...



OK, so now that we have settled this silly part of the thread, maybe we can get back to you snarkily bringing up heroin as an apt comparison for marijuana.

Thank you, but I asked you for PROOF that marijuana users are more likely to get in an accident.

The fact that science never really proves anything, but simply creates more and more reliable and comprehensive theories of the world that nevertheless are always subject to update and improvement, is one of the key aspects of why science is so successful.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

The quote obviously helps my case. My main point in bringing up this semantic argument is that you have been misusing the word proof. I believe I have thoroughly showed that to be correct.

Huh?

The study is not arbitrary. It follows standard scientific protocols.

Douchebag's prediction of 5 pages was light.

This board is racist against potheads.

I don't care anymore.

What about Team Cocaine?

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

You got me.

I don't care anymore.

So I can safely assume that the only difference between the two groups was presence of marijuana in the system ?

One would think that in a "controlled" study the participants were not taking anything else i.e. caffeine, nicotine, beer or all were taking those things.

You got me.

I don't care anymore.

So I can safely assume that the only difference between the two groups was presence of marijuana in the system ?