There is plenty of evidence for consensus. Medical institutions and departments national and international all claim that brain maturity is not reached until the mid to late twenties. Google “prefrontal cortex development age”. There very much is a consensus, unless we are using different meanings for the word “consensus”. Or perhaps we’re not talking about the same fact that there’s consensus over. If course there’s no consensus on the exact age, and that’s all the articles were saying, but that has no bearing on the fact that development doesn’t peak and fall until the twenties.
… yeah about that “sources” thing you mentioned. Those would not belong to “scientific consensus”. Neuroscientists claiming there is no such consensus however are valid sources, papers showing something else than the claimed consensus do too.
Anyway, it’s pretty clear you have some other reason than science behind not accepting you’re in the wrong here. The Nature study with its very clear graphs should be enough when it comes to science papers and there are numerous neuroscientists quoted in the other links I’ve given. You seem to believe “Slate” becomes the source when they quote one, but that’s not how sourcing works.
You haven’t given me a source other than Slate.
And look, if you can’t see how that argument generalises to antivax acceptance then you are part of the problem frankly.
I’m going to stop here because you’re dug in, and starting to project ad hominems.
You believe there to be a consensus that doesn’t exist. That’s the point the neuroscientists make in the links I’ve given you.
Here’s a recent paper that could be used to claim it’s 20, not 25, if you want to draw a line: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42540-8
There is plenty of evidence for consensus. Medical institutions and departments national and international all claim that brain maturity is not reached until the mid to late twenties. Google “prefrontal cortex development age”. There very much is a consensus, unless we are using different meanings for the word “consensus”. Or perhaps we’re not talking about the same fact that there’s consensus over. If course there’s no consensus on the exact age, and that’s all the articles were saying, but that has no bearing on the fact that development doesn’t peak and fall until the twenties.
… yeah about that “sources” thing you mentioned. Those would not belong to “scientific consensus”. Neuroscientists claiming there is no such consensus however are valid sources, papers showing something else than the claimed consensus do too.
No, because down that road of argument lies the validation of antivax views.
hahahaha no, most definitely not :D
Anyway, it’s pretty clear you have some other reason than science behind not accepting you’re in the wrong here. The Nature study with its very clear graphs should be enough when it comes to science papers and there are numerous neuroscientists quoted in the other links I’ve given. You seem to believe “Slate” becomes the source when they quote one, but that’s not how sourcing works.
You haven’t given me a source other than Slate.
And look, if you can’t see how that argument generalises to antivax acceptance then you are part of the problem frankly.
I’m going to stop here because you’re dug in, and starting to project ad hominems.