• AmiceseOP
      link
      fedilink
      -11 year ago

      That’s anecdotal, not substantial, evidence.

      • @sexy_peachA
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        I didn’t say it was evidence. I don’t need to give evidence for a claim this mainstream. Look it up yourselves.

        • AmiceseOP
          link
          fedilink
          01 year ago

          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

          Argumentum ad populum and also peak “tRuSt Me BrO”.

          • Helix 🧬
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            Argumentum ad populum

            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”.

          • @sexy_peachA
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Chemical imbalance theory is mainstream

            I don’t believe in chemical imbalance theory though.

            • AmiceseOP
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              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.”