You proved my point: needing to counter homeopathy every single time it (or something vaguely similar, such as anti-vax--and yes, that is bait) is mentioned off

You proved my point: needing to counter homeopathy every single time it (or something vaguely similar, such as anti-vax--and yes, that is bait) is mentioned off-hand is automatic thought. I didn't bring up homeopathy with arguments for or against, I brought it up as an example of what happens to discussions, I discouraged people from discussing the merits of it, yet you still do. A good translation of "idées reçues" would be "a mild case of groupthink" (while recognizing that homoeopathy itself is a product of more serious groupthink). It's not a judgement about the content but an observation about the behavior I see on HN. I think it's totally possible to have automatic thoughts that are scientifically sound, but they can still be automatic (or "idées reçues") if they come more from unanalyzed peer statements and wanting to fit in than from self-driven analysis.