[tux3]

>A degree doesn't mean you're somehow less susceptible to addiction

I could see this go either way. There are people who are, somehow, simply unaware of risks and not very interested in learning more. I'd expect at least some effect.

Do you have any source for the claim?

[uoaei]

I propose a hearty ban on bad-faith "do you have a source for that" questions directed at negative statements. If this community is to be science-based, it must adopt the position that the null hypothesis is valid until proven otherwise.

[tux3]

I propose assuming good faith, and a healthy dose of earnest curiosity.

[uoaei]

There is no good faith in conversation-stopping, impossible asks. It's not up to others to carry your weight in a conversation. They would rather disengage because it's a lot of energy (emotional and otherwise) to hand-hold someone through an entire process of reasoning. Usually tutors are paid top dollar for their time and effort in such situations.

[tux3]

Impossible asks? Asking you why you believe something, a conversation stopper and an impossible ask?

Refusing to explain, or cite, or accusing others of bad faith, those are conversation stoppers.

It is not that anything not proven beyond all doubt has to fall back to assuming a null. There is such a thing as probabilistic arguments, statistics, and bayesian-ish reasoning

Sometimes, people have reasons for making negative statements. It helps to show arguments, instead of immediately launching into bad faith accusations.

Talk about wasting a lot of energy!

[uoaei]

There's such a large gap between "why do you believe that" and "do you have a source for that" -- for exactly the reasons you cite about reasoning techniques -- that your points here are entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.