3 ms·

In this context, "does not support" means "the evidence is of low quality", not "the evidence says it probably doesn't work". Per the quotations in my other com

In this context, "does not support" means "the evidence is of low quality", not "the evidence says it probably doesn't work". Per the quotations in my other comment here, the paper and its references conclude that the best available RCT evidence is favorable to cannabis for those conditions. They're just not impressed with the statistical power and methodological rigor of those studies. It's unfortunately common to report that situation of favorable but low-quality evidence as "does not support", despite the confusion that invariably results. This confusion has been noted for literally decades, for example in https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC351831/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC351831/ I'm sad to see it repeated here, and I hope we can avoid propagating it further.

bragr 10mo ago
>I'm sad to see it repeated here, and I hope we can avoid propagating it further. Science educators have been fighting the scientific theory vs vernacular theory fight for decades without much progress, so I wouldn't hold my breath. I think at some point, the scientific community needs to accept that many of the formal and precise ways they are taught to write in order to avoid ambiguity, have the exact opposite effect on everybody else. Unless we adjust the terminology so that the scientific and casual definitions more closely align, we're just going up have to keep explaining.
baxtr 10mo ago
What would you want to write instead?
- tripletao 10mo ago
  The acute pain paper they cited (linked in other comment) said "low-quality evidence [...] for a small but significant reduction", which seems clear and correct to me. If these authors think that's too favorable, then the paper I linked above suggests "insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude an important difference". Either of those distinguishes "strong evidence this doesn't work, and more studies are probably wasted effort" vs. "weak evidence, more studies required". I don't see any benefit to a single phrase covering both cases unless the goal is to deliberately mislead.

bragr 10mo ago

>I'm sad to see it repeated here, and I hope we can avoid propagating it further. Science educators have been fighting the scientific theory vs vernacular theory fight for decades without much progress, so I wouldn't hold my breath. I think at some point, the scientific community needs to accept that many of the formal and precise ways they are taught to write in order to avoid ambiguity, have the exact opposite effect on everybody else. Unless we adjust the terminology so that the scientific and casual definitions more closely align, we're just going up have to keep explaining.

baxtr 10mo ago

What would you want to write instead?

tripletao 10mo ago
The acute pain paper they cited (linked in other comment) said "low-quality evidence [...] for a small but significant reduction", which seems clear and correct to me. If these authors think that's too favorable, then the paper I linked above suggests "insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude an important difference". Either of those distinguishes "strong evidence this doesn't work, and more studies are probably wasted effort" vs. "weak evidence, more studies required". I don't see any benefit to a single phrase covering both cases unless the goal is to deliberately mislead.