Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea why you think that any of this might be persuasive. Do you really do what random people on the Internet tell you, with no evidence, just because they say it's a good idea? And were I to accept this proposal, there are no conditions for success or failure: a willing mind would make for any number of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. Empiricism is a much more reliable way to know things than hearsay:…
I'm not sure what your argument is. This is an example of hearsay and anecodote: "Hey Joe, this brand of probiotic worked well for me. You should give it a try." After hearing that, should Joe then look for meta-analyses of the effectiveness of different probiotic brands, or does he have defeasible justification for trying it out? Maybe you'll say a search for meta-analyses is too stringent, but that you could at lea…
Re: Puzzle-solving 'doesn't slow down mental decline in older people'
#111Joe should ignore unproven therapies, particularly when accompanied by grandiose claims, and especially when the proponent refuses point-blank to substantiate said claims. Probiotics are another good example of an unproven therapy, but with substantially more evidence against their efficacy. Joe should certainly read meta-analyses about such things, and avoid quackery -- and others should avoid spreading quackery.