> You wouldn't say that a study into a rat's retina is completely irrelevant to human eye sight, would you?
Er, probably? Not completely irrelevant, and perfectly valuable in laying out the groundwork for how we suspect things might work, but I also wouldn't trust it until somebody had it separately verified that human retinas actually worked the same way.
> and (from my lay understanding) generic enough
Yes, if that's true then it's interesting. I'm just extremely cautious of assuming that the things in question are in fact the same. I think the drug analogy does in fact hold, because if the mechanisms were the same them I would expect artificially chemically altering them to play out the same. And also in fairness, that frequently does work! But it also doesn't work in many cases, hence my being extremely cautious until somebody actually does the leg work to verify that humans are actually the same.
Er, probably? Not completely irrelevant, and perfectly valuable in laying out the groundwork for how we suspect things might work, but I also wouldn't trust it until somebody had it separately verified that human retinas actually worked the same way.
> and (from my lay understanding) generic enough
Yes, if that's true then it's interesting. I'm just extremely cautious of assuming that the things in question are in fact the same. I think the drug analogy does in fact hold, because if the mechanisms were the same them I would expect artificially chemically altering them to play out the same. And also in fairness, that frequently does work! But it also doesn't work in many cases, hence my being extremely cautious until somebody actually does the leg work to verify that humans are actually the same.