Quote:
Originally Posted by viceant
Reduction to absurd is for maths issues and this is not maths. You're, also, making a straw man. Placebo effect is real and too much people thinks homeopathy works
|
Absurd is a logical argument, which of course can be used outside formulas.
I cannot see where where would be the strawman: maybe (I suspect) you are not seeing that I am stating that what is important is elsewhere (not the scientific demonstration of eye damage but the empirical feedback of comfort or discomfort, which should be enough), and you are calling that a strawman.
I do not see the stretch between placebo and the idea, in synthesis, "if you have to squint it is "probably" not good for you - do not wait for an article".
* "Probably", there, was an understatement, rhetorically put there to simulate what the "first person" would think on the spot.
I think my point should be clear, but Viceant, can I friendly suggest that while you from time to time check an article built on lab results, you strictly avoid disregarding your bodily feedbacks - I hope you do not, but you write as if? Yes I know that sugar does fool your appetite and that some substances create fake hunger etc., but really, the perception of discomfort has a purpose.