Itās not about importance. I could be the least important person on this forum but still not have time or the priority to provide evidence for my statements. Also why would I prove myself to you, when you yourself havenāt given any evidence for your statements that Iām wrong and you have not provided any reasons for me to think youāre credible enough that your statements on red/NIR light therapies should be believed even without supporting evidence? I provided reasons for why Iām pretty credible when it comes to this subject. Some people will take that as enough of a reason to think my statements are most likely true and will find my statements valuable as a result. Others will not, but thatās fine by me. My comments are not for them.
Not really. Each of us has different values and amount of time available to spend here. Some people here have time to post way more than I do while many others have a lot less time than I do and donāt even have time to read the posts let alone write posts. Weāre all entitled to prioritize our time as we wish.
Listen to your own language here to see who is a bully here. Youāre being very rude. I repeat to you again that I am not obsessed with this subject. I researched it so deeply because I got paid to do so. Iām not obliged to prove anything to you, and with your attitute and attacks on my character (instead of sticking to discussions on red light therapy), Iām definitely not going to waste my time proving things to you. Iām more likely to provide evidence for someone else that is more polite, if they ask a very specific question, but even that Iām unlikely to do, because this whole discussion is getting tiring.
Regarding proof. You have been stating that I am wrong and that I need to provide proof, all the while you have not provided any studies in support of that. Therefore it seems to me that you consider yourself credible enough that you donāt need to support your statements with evidence, but you think Iām not so credible so I have to support mine. Can you see the irony here? Why should we believe what you say? What makes you so credible on this matter that makes you not need to supply evidence?
I donāt think Iāve been disrespectful towards Alex here. Iāve been direct and harsh but tried to comment on the actual science not his personality.
I have, and I appreciate that. But youāre not obliged to answer me and provide evidence whenever I ask something.
Yes but there are cases where demanding proof is the opposite of being respectful. If some individual has a high credibility in a certain area, asking him to provide evidence for most of the things he says on that area can be disrespectful, as in youāre questioning their credibility and demanding time from them. As an example, lets say you had a conversation with Matt Klaberlein on rapamycin and he would make a lot of statements about it, it would be disrespectful to ask him to provide references for everything he says. That would be an insult to his comptenency right? Instead you would assume he is right on most of what he says about rapamycin, although he could certainly be wrong on some things.
The same applies if you ask an individual about some area that he happens to have researched a ton and that individual also has a good track record of evaluating the evidence and reaching sound conclusions. In this way, Alex demanding evidence from me can come across as disrespect, given how much Iāve researched red/NIR light therapy. If in contrast someone with high credibility on researching red/NIR light therapies would quesiton something I said about it, I would be much more compelled to provide evidence and discuss it to see if one of us missed something. But the way Alex responds to me is like he is saying all the research I did is worthless and thatās not a respectful way to ask someone to provide evidence.
