Not wired for skeptical thinking

Michael Moynihan wrote a feature article for Newsweek about the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) and the annual convention it puts on called The Amazing Meeting or TAM. James Randi, now 84, got his start as an illusionist, but in the 1970s switched to skepticism, "the debunking of psychics, mediums, pseudoscientists, faith-healers, homeopaths, and anyone else who makes claims that defy the known laws of science."

Alas, in this age one can't simply debunk and be done with it. The Internet makes it easy to disseminate bunkery. And our species has a long and persistent history of believing in the paranormal -- "73% of Americans subscribe to at least one paranormal belief." Yeah, most people simply don't question preposterous claims, they "aren’t wired for skeptical thinking. They’re wired for faith."

The story of JREF isn't a smooth one. There are people who use the word "skeptic" for other things, such as "global-warming skeptic." They're claiming the word to mean the opposite of what JREF does, to debunk science rather than pseudoscience.

Then there is the issue of whether skeptics should attack only creationism or attack religion in general. Must a skeptic be atheist? Debate rages within the organization. They've already seen that not all atheists are skeptics.

Alas, there is one aspect that stands in the way of expanding the movement. Skeptics tend to be arrogant. That's not something that endears them to other people.

With the list of bunkmakers including homeopathy, or home remedies (otherwise known as quack medicine), I had better bring up a topic before my friend and debate partner does (though he'll be exceedingly polite about it). Does that nutrition center in Ann Arbor that I've started going to fit into quack medicine?

From our last lunchtime discussion he believes that is quite possible (though I'm thankful for his lack of arrogance). When the center loaded me up with supplements (charging a hefty penny) without addressing my dietary concerns, that thought of quackery crossed my mind. Am I about to plunk down a few hundred bucks (prepay for a dozen visits and get a discount!) and the only thing I'll have to show for it at the end is a hole in my pocket?

If I had heard about this place perhaps six months ago I would have dismissed it But since then a couple things have happened.

First, the diet program at the most respected health system in the area failed for me. I didn't lose weight (though I got to maintaining weight) on their regular diet. I only began to lose when I started eating their dehydrated meals. The dieticians and physiologist were stumped over how to treat me. I met the physiologist yesterday and again she asked me what I thought the next step should be. They plus my primary care physician didn't have experience with my leading problem and have told me they had to read up on the latest research. They weren't able to refer me to someone more knowledgeable. Traditional medicine failed. Of course, I made quite sure of that failure before going on.

Second, my sister-in-law in Texas, working with a corresponding center in her area, told about remarkable changes in her own health after big adjustments in diet and supplements. She even lost considerable weight. She told me all about it when I visited last May. Without her story I would not have asked for a referral to this place in Ann Arbor. Alternative medicine succeeded.

Is it quackery? Maybe. I can't tell yet. However, I decided it is worth the money to find out. I'm out of alternatives. I'm sure weeks or months from now I'll either be lamenting the loss of money or exclaiming over better health. Stay tuned.