I Love Lamp Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Oh, I know you wouldn't write such a steaming pile of shit. I just wanted to point out all the flaws in that article that looks on par with a 6th grade book report. It frustrates me to see how lax journalistic integrity has become and from such a young age for propaganda speak to start. On top of that, how the school paper supervision could allow that to be published. I would bet money that the article was 100% fabricated as a "Say No To Drugs" propaganda to the kids, which is the absolute wrong way to go about getting kids to not take illicit substances at such a young age. The truth is a much stronger weapon. I think you're taking a high school newspaper article a little too hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enigma# Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I think you're taking a high school newspaper article a little too hard. [video=youtube;_WlvPclQnmQ] RELATED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Oh, I know you wouldn't write such a steaming pile of shit. I just wanted to point out all the flaws in that article that looks on par with a 6th grade book report. Research papers rarely tell you the source of their information in the first ~2 sentences, and when it does its just as vague as naming a school. It frustrates me to see how lax journalistic integrity has become and from such a young age for propaganda speak to start. Propaganda, really? I don't suppose you have read many scientific journals/essays, have you? On top of that, how the school paper supervision could allow that to be published. I would bet money that the article was 100% fabricated as a "Say No To Drugs" propaganda to the kids, which is the absolute wrong way to go about getting kids to not take illicit substances at such a young age. The truth is a much stronger weapon. Yeah you're right, I hate that 1st admendment to the constitution that prohibits the abridging the freedom of speech, and infringing on freedom of press. You and OP should learn how the scientific community works now, if you read something that you don't agree with, YOU prove it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkMonotone Posted September 7, 2012 Author Share Posted September 7, 2012 Research papers rarely tell you the source of their information in the first ~2 sentences, and when it does its just as vague as naming a school. Propaganda, really? I don't suppose you have read many scientific journals/essays, have you? Yeah you're right, I hate that 1st admendment to the constitution that prohibits the abridging the freedom of speech, and infringing on freedom of press. You and OP should learn how the scientific community works now, if you read something that you don't agree with, YOU prove it wrong. No! When you make an assertion YOU MUST provide concrete evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 No! When you make an assertion YOU MUST provide concrete evidence. You just made an assertion where is your evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathematik Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I don't really want to get into a heated debate over this, especially with people I don't know well enough, but I will go with you this far. Research papers rarely tell you the source of their information in the first ~2 sentences, and when it does its just as vague as naming a school. I agree with this point, that makes for a very odd read if your sources were cited in the first 2 sentences before you reach the meat and potatoes of your research. I would like to counter with the fact that after you've made your point, and provided reasoning behind your findings, you should then say where the data was acquired and how it was achieved. Propaganda, really? I don't suppose you have read many scientific journals/essays, have you? Are you saying scientific journals/essays are propaganda machines? If so, I agree with that. You take a look at who is funding the research and look at the result, and more times than not you'll find that the people who funded the project got the result they were looking for. Yeah you're right, I hate that 1st admendment to the constitution that prohibits the abridging the freedom of speech, and infringing on freedom of press. The first amendment is a necessary right to the basis of freedom and I'm not against it by any means. I'm more against the dissemination of disinformation. I see the first amendment as a double edged sword that is a necessary good, but can be hid behind for less than ethical works too. You and OP should learn how the scientific community works now, if you read something that you don't agree with, YOU prove it wrong. I don't want to speak on behalf of Dark, but I do have some familiarity with the scientific community, but I am by no means an expert, and I appreciate the feedback. My goal in life, and in anything, is to get something out of anything you do. That's one of the reasons why I joined this community due to it's diversity. I do believe I could prove this wrong if I had the ethical, financial backing. While I don't have that, I can only provide reasoning using logic and limited personal experience. Also, on a personal note, I am well aware this is just some high school paper and in the greater scheme of things it's nothing. I'm just really bored today and this caught my attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkMonotone Posted September 8, 2012 Author Share Posted September 8, 2012 You just made an assertion where is your evidence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookie Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof This is only half of the scientific community works dark, the other half is proving other claims wrong/right. You propose a solution to a problem > You find evidence > Does your evidence support your claim > If so, test again > Does it still support your claim? > If so, test again > If the results still support your claim write a scientific journal > Can another independent study provide evidence for your claim? Congrats you have a theory OR > Does someone prove you wrong? > Test their numbers > Are they right? Start over. So what did they do wrong here? BTW here's the article I think the writer is talking about "The study followed 1,037 New Zealand children for 25 years. Subjects took IQ tests at age 13, before any of them had smoked marijuana, and again at age 38. Throughout the study, participants also answered several surveys about their drug use. Roughly 5 percent of the participants started using marijuana as teenagers . Those who smoked marijuana at least four times a week and used marijuana throughout their life saw their IQ drop an average of 8 points, the equivalent of going from an A to a B student. The drop was not explained by other drug use, years of education, schizophrenia or using marijuana in the day before the test." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Headband)(EG) Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I have been smoking weed, still have a 3.8 and I write some damn good poetry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest teh_g Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 As a member of Mensa I laugh at all the cretins that lose IQ points. Now to go get a beer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.