I don’t need to give evidence for a claim this mainstream.
So if Chiropratics were mainstream, then I wouldn’t need evidence to trust them. Chemical imbalance theory is mainstream in psychiatry, therefore I can just trust it! /s
Yeah, that’s also what I thought. Although on the other hand, the burden of proof lies on the person who made the original claim (“Psychiatric drugs are straight up placebos that cause harms.”), which in this case is you.
You provided some sources so there’s an actual basis to be discussed, unlike the parent comment which just says “look it up”.
I don’t believe in chemical imbalance theory though.
I didn’t say that. I was just using the chemical imbalance theory as an example to show the fallacious reasoning in your argument (that evidence is unneccessary for mainstream claims): “I don’t need to give evidence for a claim this mainstream. Look it up yourselves.”
That’s anecdotal, not substantial, evidence.
I didn’t say it was evidence. I don’t need to give evidence for a claim this mainstream. Look it up yourselves.
So if Chiropratics were mainstream, then I wouldn’t need evidence to trust them. Chemical imbalance theory is mainstream in psychiatry, therefore I can just trust it! /s
Argumentum ad populum and also peak “tRuSt Me BrO”.
Yeah, that’s also what I thought. Although on the other hand, the burden of proof lies on the person who made the original claim (“Psychiatric drugs are straight up placebos that cause harms.”), which in this case is you.
You provided some sources so there’s an actual basis to be discussed, unlike the parent comment which just says “look it up”.
I don’t believe in chemical imbalance theory though.
I didn’t say that. I was just using the chemical imbalance theory as an example to show the fallacious reasoning in your argument (that evidence is unneccessary for mainstream claims): “I don’t need to give evidence for a claim this mainstream. Look it up yourselves.”