View Single Post
Old 13th March 2019, 12:47 PM   #536
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation Insults do not address his use of a logical fallacy

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Well, I'll stick with that against the alternative of: "No authority at all".....
Insults do not address his use of a logical fallacy.
Fallacy of argument from (almost false) authority from The Atheist.

I have the authority of Stegenga's essay and the published literature he cites, e.g. Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis is a recent (2018) meta-analysis.

A lie that I do not agree with Stegenga's essay when I wrote in my post that I agree with the science that he presented. His conclusion though is flawed.
12 March 2019: I am not defending the efficacy of antidepressants because that is done by the scientific evidence. I agree with most of Stegenga's essay. The evidence is mixed. The trials have the flaws that Stegenga lists.

7 March 2019: If there is no evidence distinguishing between A and B then they cannot be distinguished !
Stegenga believes that the evidence distinguishing between placebos and antidepressants is flawed. Thus their effect cannot be told apart. Therefore his conclusion is not supported by evidence - it is a personal opinion.

A delusion that I need to have published papers on the textbook and well known science that Stegenga describes!
Stegenga lists well-known issues with clinical trials comparing drugs to placebos and states his personal opinion.

Last edited by Reality Check; 13th March 2019 at 12:52 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top