Johannes wrote:Quoting researches on a subject like this is hardly a compelling way to win an argument, Kingraptor.
On the contrary, I find it to be the only legitimate way to win an argument on such topics, especially when the alternatives range from "anecdote" to "make shit up".
You can easily find shit to support almost any POV on the subject, doesn't make it true. Just like I could easily go up and dig researches that suspect antidepressants tend to do more harm than good in the long term.
Sure. And then, if we were interested enough, we could compare the merits of our papers, picking apart their weaknesses, and see who comes out with the strongest case.* Or if we were lazy/lacked the necessary expertise/whatever, we could just compare paper count and see if there was a consensus in one direction or not.
*N.B. quite often this work has already been done for us, that's what systematic reviews mean
Of course, all this is wasted on someone like Hoi, but it's still beneficial for other readers (and for our own learning).
And um point was that there's no real scientific consensus on the meds full effects, so don't say stupid shit like claiming someone being anti-meds is being anti-scientific when he provided his own presonal experience, no less than the people praising them due to their personal experiences.
Personal experience? He didn't relate any accounts, and if his opinion was based on personal experience he sure didn't have the decency to label it as such.
Anyway, Hoi gets the antiscience label because his posts label the entire field of psychiatry as useless and harmful without bothering to offer a shred of evidence in support, he has a history of irrational posts on scientific topics, and generally reads like a typical purveyor of alt-med. The absolutist statements and attitude are a dead giveaway.
See, now you're speaking my language.