> they're doing exactly the same as people who promote crystal healing or homeopathy. It's only exactly the same if you consider their formal argument in a vac

> they're doing exactly the same as people who promote crystal healing or homeopathy. It's only exactly the same if you consider their formal argument in a vacuum, neglecting everything you know and reasonably believe about the world. An intervention with a plausible mechanism has a greater chance of being effective than an intervention with no conceivable scientific mechanism (healing crystals; homeopathy). Anecdotal evidence isn't high-quality scientific evidence, but it does work as a decision support method to think about what to study more carefully -- or what to stick with because it works for some reason and you don't have the resources to scientifically validate the effect. Furthermore, and this does overlap with the placebo effect as well as fraudulent medicine: if a specific person tests a mood-elevating intervention on themselves and perceives a benefit, nobody can contradict them. Not to defend ardent believers of nonsensical cures, but if it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.