Request for this sub: academic credentials

We've discussed this before. Appeals to authority are just as bad as any other logical fallacy. What we should be striving for is more direct citation of the research that claims are based on. Make the discussion about the facts, rather than who is relaying them. Link the full studies one is using to form an opinion, then break down the logic in how that opinion was formed. If someone links good research, then breaks apart the reasoning behind their interpretation of it, we can actually get good discussion back and forth. If a perceived authority comes in making claims, but doesn't cite any research or provide reasoning for their position, how does that help push the narrative forward? It devolves into arguments over who is more qualified to make claims, rather than the facts and research the claims are based on. Moreover, there really is no traditional academic routes that pertain 100% to nootropics. You can have pharmacologists, psychiatrists, GP MDs, analytical chemists, biochemists, etc. Hell, you can even have naturopathic doctors or nutritionists. However, are any of them actually studying nootropics in their field? They might all have interesting perspectives on a limited scope, but they can have those same perspectives by relaying the science behind their position itself. That should be the true goal here: to provide direct citations of research that people can read for themselves, then have an open discussion about the interpretation of that research.