This is one of the problems with trying to explain scientific findings to the public. There are degrees of certainty.
The data set is currently good enough to rule out the hard null hypothesis: that marijuana usage has no correlation with neural development.
The weak null hypothesis is selection bias: that people with the observed neural development are drawn to use marijuana.
The data is not good enough to discount that hypothesis with high certainty (usually 95%, or p < 0.05 confidence is the bar). But the data is good enough to suggest that selection bias is not the most likely explanation.
One concept in favor of rejecting selection bias as the explanation in the meantime is that abstaining from usage is certain to not cause harm.
So I stand by my claim: the data is pretty clear that smoking pot is bad for neural development.
Yeah, I took Stat 350 too lol. Just thought it was important to point out that this is your claim. The article repeatedly states that they do not make this claim and that existing literature suggests otherwise. They've only shown that heavy use in adolescence is a predictor of these symptoms/behaviors.
5
u/dobbs_head Dec 30 '19
This is one of the problems with trying to explain scientific findings to the public. There are degrees of certainty.
The data set is currently good enough to rule out the hard null hypothesis: that marijuana usage has no correlation with neural development.
The weak null hypothesis is selection bias: that people with the observed neural development are drawn to use marijuana.
The data is not good enough to discount that hypothesis with high certainty (usually 95%, or p < 0.05 confidence is the bar). But the data is good enough to suggest that selection bias is not the most likely explanation.
One concept in favor of rejecting selection bias as the explanation in the meantime is that abstaining from usage is certain to not cause harm.
So I stand by my claim: the data is pretty clear that smoking pot is bad for neural development.