Why is it "comically bad inference" to postulate that something environmental may be messing with our serotonin systems if psychedelic serotonergics cure ailments that we know require messaging via serotonin? (IBS ~ gut, migraine ~ brain, sleeping problems, and mood swings ~ brain)
I still don't see the argument. Let's say an argument is a series of premises followed by a conclusion. Maybe you can render it for me.
How does it follow from a class of drugs addressing a class of ailments that there's some industrial process messing with some process in the body? Does that follow from every class of drugs that addresses any class of ailments?
If we find out that aspirin is even more versatile than we thought and helps with an increasing amount of ailments, how does it follow that there's some related industrial process behind those ailments? Why not just the more parsimonious inference that... aspirin is more useful than we thought?
Everyone feels fine. Then everyone feels bad. They start taking iron supplements and feel better again. Inference: something in the environment messed with their iron supply, be it less iron in the food, something in the water that hinders iron absorbtion, or other.
