It's not necessary to drag one's assessment of their credibility into this at all, though. Points 1-3 of the original post are all that need to be argued. htt

It's not necessary to drag one's assessment of their credibility into this at all, though. Points 1-3 of the original post are all that need to be argued. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=throwaway7890 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=throwaway7890 Credibility is not "exempt" from scrutiny, it simply doesn't change the truth value of any factual statements about whether the treatment works. If it somehow could change the truth of whether this approach worked or not, then if this guy presented the opposite conclusion, somehow this treatment could either start or stop working based only on the person's opinion and reputation. There's obviously no causal mechanism for that to happen and believing it would require magical thinking. So arguing over it is irrelevant and inserting it into the argument is pointless. We instead can properly say that he hasn't answered a lot of good questions about his approach or presented sufficient evidence to believe in it, which is the rational approach.