Always Be Skeptical:

Always Skeptical, But Never a Skeptic

by Josh Day

March 2, 2010

A healthy dose of skepticism in all things goes a long way. It's always good to look at everything with a skeptical, critical eye, examining a topic through a variety of sources to come to a learned, reasonable conclusion.

Now, when I say everything, I do mean everything: natural health, alternative medicine, diet and nutrition, and of course allopathic or western medicine which we Americans have been conditioned for generations to accept blindly and totally. This is where I depart radically from the "Skeptics," who we will discuss in detail later.

Unlike "Skeptics," my skepticism is universal; I question everything, especially long-held beliefs and truisms espoused by established authorities, and I do not believe a claim just because it supposedly is found to be true due to "rigorous scientific, peer-reviewed research" and "double-blind, placebo-controlled studies." (I will explain why and provide some sources for this doubt later.)

I also don't buy into something because an "expert" or so-called authority tells me it's The Truth without supplying more information or "homework" where I can read up on the data myself. Often I've found these expert types get snippy when you question their authority, which they've grown to think is absolute in their respective fields, and their response to your questioning is something like, "Well, what school did you go to?" or "You want to wear the lab coat?"

This includes natural health gurus, naturopaths, dietitians, chiropractors, religious leaders, and of course, medical doctors.

Dangers of Gurus

Let's look at a recent tragic news event.

James Arthur Ray, bigwig motivational speaker and personal power guru who's appeared on Oprah and has been featured in the very popular self-help book "The Secret," is currently jailed on charges of manslaughter. Three people died under his charge during a high-powered and intensive self-help retreat at a Sedona, Arizona ranch. Customers paid approximately $10,000 for this multiple day retreat.

Here's a glance of what happened, cobbled together from eyewitness accounts. This was written by Cassandra Yorgey who interviewed a number of survivors and victims of James Arthur Ray.

People are flailing in seizures; others are vomiting violently, or foaming at the mouth. Bodies are lined up unconscious, some are blue from lack of oxygen, but for some it is too late, they are already dead. Survivors that are barely able to stand struggle to help the others, they have had almost no food or water for nearly three days, even longer without sleep. It looks like a war zone, but for the incongruent figure of James Arthur Ray [...] who exits the sweat lodge and stands tall with a big smile, the only one able to stand on his own volition. [...] He is not worried about the health and well-being of his followers who have paid $10,000.00 (tack on an additional 5,000.00 or so if you include flights, room and board, and camping supplies) to attend his retreat. In fact, he and his team urge people to stop taking care of others and focus on their own journey, assuring them they are fine and only "purging." Someone finally realizes James Ray is not in control of the situation and calls 911. (Yorgey, examiner.com)

Essentially, here's what went down: retreat goers were encouraged to stay up all night the first night of the event, the next day they were dropped off in the middle of the Sedona desert with no food nor water and left there for 36 hours to undertake a "Vision Quest," then they were picked up and brought back to shelter and offered a buffet of food and water, and then a few hours later the infamous sweat lodge began.

Cassandra Yorgey describes:

We know what happened when James Ray turned the relaxing Native American equivalent of a sauna into an endurance competition. He not only encouraged participants to stay and push past physical discomfort, he also actively dissuaded people that wanted to leave. The phrase "push through your threshold" was repeated often by James Ray. If participants didn't make it to the door fast enough they had to wait for the next round. James Ray would slam the tarp shut shouting "Too late! Door's shut!" and as he was sitting directly next to the door he was escalating it into a physical confrontation (not to mention he was the only one getting reprieve from the heat. Others could not feel a thing when the door was opened) – playing off something we are trained from birth to avoid. Throughout all this, James Ray is speaking words of encouragement. He speaks of how throwing up is good and actually purging (it isn't. it's actually a sign of dehydration and many other bad things), and explains that passing out is common (it isn't). He encourages people who find it too hot to bury their faces in the dirt, because it was cooler. This is like telling people to stay in a sauna and if it's too hot – hey, just stick your face by the bottom of the door! (Yorgey, examiner.com)

Here at Health & Beyond Online we are proponents of fasting, so the obscene abomination that occurred at Ray's "Spiritual Warrior" retreat needs to be exposed for the dangerous and reckless thing it was.

First of all, fasting is never a trivial thing, and there are a number of people -- pregnant women, children, adolescents, individuals with certain medical problems (diabetes, anyone?) or nutritional deficiencies -- who should not even consider fasting, be it a water fast or even a 3-day juice fast. It's not a macho, competitive, "Survivor"-style elimination match.

Ultimately, you're supposed to feel great and on top of the world near the end and after breaking your fast. Fasting is supposed to rejuvenate and bring you greater health, not deplete and turn you into a bedraggled zombie.

I also must point out that what happened was not a Native American sweat lodge ritual. It was an exploitative, profit-driven, bastardized form of the long-held custom. Everything that happened under those plastic tarps was wrong and an affront to the true meaning of the ceremony.

So what's to blame, then, if not the fasting and sweating?

Once again, here is Cassandra Yorgey:

How did a retreat aimed at spiritual growth and financial wealth go so horribly, tragically wrong? Those who were not present are pointing fingers at the physical experience of a sweat lodge – was it constructed properly by James Ray and his staff? Did they have the proper building permits? Did they use too many hot rocks or have too many participants? Does the government need to issue standardized guidelines for sweat lodge participants? After interviewing one of James Ray’s victims who was present at the retreat, I would argue no - although it is clear the technical specifications of the lodge were inappropriate. This is not an accident of negligence because a leader was untrained in the Native American sweat lodge practices. This tragedy is the consequence of a charismatic, megalomaniacal smooth-talker with undue influence and his own agenda – one that did not, at any point during the retreat, account for the safety of the participants, physically, mentally, or emotionally. (Yorgey, examiner.com)

If you'd like to know more, you'll find the most comprehensive collection of news stories relating to this event here at NHNE, an excellent news source operated by Sedona, Arizona resident David Sunfellow.

James Arthur Ray is almost the perfect example of why a healthy, universal skepticism should be a major portion of anyone's point of view. The skeptical and inquisitive mind would investigate Ray's claims of personal power, goal setting, self help, and Law of Attraction and would see that his "free" seminars are nothing more than pitches to upsell you on high-end, overpriced books, DVDs, and paid seminars.

Your healthy skeptical perspective would also allow you to see a lot of good advice and helpful suggestions in Ray's teachings; you wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater -- although in this case it would be more like keeping the bathwater and throwing out the baby!

However, you'll also find that the overwhelming majority of Ray's stuff is recycled and often blatantly ripped off from Napolean Hill's classic Think and Grow Rich, which was published during the Great Depression. You can grab a copy of Hill's book for the price of a paperback and get all the info you need about self-help, personal motivation, and accumulation of wealth.

No need to shell out big bucks or blow a multi-thousand dollar weekend getting physically exhausted or walking on hot coals during a self-help guru's intensive seminar.

Enough about these self-help guys.

Good Skepticism

I personally try to approach everything with a skeptical perspective. Let me give you an example.

My hobby is home aquariums, and I keep both fresh and saltwater fish, as well as corals and a number of marine invertebrates. Naturally, there's a lot of information, "expert" advice, and myth in my hobby. This sort of information as well as misinformation is not only rife in books and instructional DVDs but also runs wild through the Internet, especially on tropical fish discussion forums.

Mandarin dragonet. I successfully kept one in a nano tank for 2 years, despite constant nay-saying and even threats from fish hobby "Skeptics."Let's say I want to try my hand at a new species of fish. I have a bunch of questions pertaining to habitat, food, tankmates, pH, substrate, water parameters, lighting, decor, and tank size. The average person would stroll into his local LFS (live fish store in aquariumese) and simply ask the owner or employee. If the fish is available, most of the time they'll walk out with the bagged fish, and most of the time the fish would end up in a totally unsuitable tank and habitat.

On the flip-side of that coin you have Internet discussion forums and fish "expertise" sites. Here you'll get warned away from your desired fish as the nagging expert feel it's too "difficult" for you, or you'll get talked into buying a tank that's needlessly expensive just to make the consensus of forum "experts" happy. This is herd mentality and group think at its finest, folks.

And speaking of "consensus" and herd mentality, here's a quote from the late author Michael Crichton*, taken from a lecture at the California Institute of Technology:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. (Crichton)

Now back to this hypothetical fish of mine.

So what to do with such polarizing bits of information? Here are the steps I take when I'm investigating a new fish, a new biotope habitat, or anything related to my hobby. To put it quickly, I examine several sources of information, anecdotal and scientific, and distill everything down to a reasonable conclusion that pertains to my specific situation.

  1. I go first to a conservative expert site like wetwebmedia and read all the info available for the fish. Then I go to a moderate site -- one that I've found provides me with information I most often use. Finally, I go to a very liberal site and get their opinion and experience.

    This gives me a good base on which to build a foundation. I can also make a reasonable determination if what I plan to do is impractical or simply would not work with my setup.

  2. I gather anecdotal experience from fellow hobbyists. Many sites offer pages where fish keepers write in and share their unique experiences with others.

    I may also post my plans on a fish forum. However, I also privately message a hobbyist buddy or two to get their real opinion, untainted by "Fish hobbyist consensus." If anyone becomes emotional or personally attacks me on a public forum, I do not let their opinion turn me off to the fish.

    In fact, for good or ill, this sort of behavior pushes me closer to buying the fish. "Skeptics" will gnash their teeth and scream, THAT'S ILLOGICAL -- don't worry, we'll be getting to these guys soon -- but you know what? That's just human nature. Deal with it.

  3. Finally, I go to fishbase.org and get field data from ichthyologists, fisheries and hatcheries, and research scientists on said fish. This is the hard science, so to speak, and what I personally find so fascinating is that it often runs contrary to what we hold as true and long accepted in the fish hobby.

    Case in point let's take a look at pufferfish. In the hobby most of the species available for trade are thought to be brackish with some species requiring full saltwater at adulthood, and if you say anything otherwise, get ready for the Skeptic fish police to give you a citation. Interestingly enough I've read reports from ichthyologists who have found very large adults of certain popular species living in pure freshwater out in the wild. This is not just migrating, mind you, but clearly living in straight freshwater.

    So what's true in the scientific world and what's true in the hobby world may be very different. And this makes one wonder, could both sides be right? The answer is absolutely.

I try to use this same process in all things when it comes to making a reasoned decision. Could you apply this same process to diet and health? Of course you can, thanks to the wealth of free information on the Internet.

In most cases I think it's best to never trust in just one source of information, especially if that font is spewing from an expert. There always seems to be differing opinions and even differing theories or interpretations of scientific data.

For example, I run a fish information site, complete with a blog, a number of articles on fish species as well as my experiences in the hobby, and I also sell a book on how to set up nano reefs designed for beginners. I try to make it clear to readers that my goal is to help educate but certainly my word is not the final authority, and I absolutely do not consider myself an "expert." As my father-in-law likes to say, "Break down the word 'expert.' X and SPURT, and there you go."

What it all comes down to is the balance of anecdotal evidence, scientific fact, and opinion.

Bad Science and Industry Control

Unfortunately, "scientific fact" these days is not always so factual. And sadly, this makes decision-making no walk in the park.

This hijacking of the scientific method has been a slow process, being carried out over multiple generations but only really blossoming into the travesty that's occurring today during my lifetime.

This is all due to something I like to call the Scientific-Industrial Complex.

Like the military-industrial complex upon which I based the name, the scientific-industrial complex is a combination of political, scientific, and commercial interests. Think of it as a hydra, with heads and tentacles composed of expensive and career-inflating if not dead-end genetic research, patents, cushy grants, consultation fees (bribes), supposedly independent third-party peer reviewed journals with conflicted interests in corporations and major universities, crooked studies, and a total lack of professional ethics.

Don't believe me? Check out how well the new study results for yearly mammograms went over. Cancer societies have billions of dollars and are yet another head of the scientific-industrial complex's hydra. They've manipulated public opinion and treatment choice so long it's no wonder, as Dr. Ralph Moss writes in the article to which I linked above, "Mammography is now as American as apple pie."

The mammography example is a superb illustration of how critically and catastrophically wrong things are today in the scientific world. Real science is supposed to be in a state of flux as old theories are proven to be wrong or need to be tweaked, new theories are tested, and sometimes scientific truth branches off into a whole new direction (just watch the updates in Carl Sagan's Cosmos series to see the corrections and new, sometimes contradictory discoveries in astronomy).

There is no status quo in real science.

There is no emotional or financial attachment.

But that's not how it works when greed and careers and reputations are on the hook with major corporations and government policies.

When James Bond-villain amounts of money are involved, or a drastic paradigm shift in the general public's thinking, do you really think the light of real, unbiased, properly conducted science will shine through?

It's shameful and it's a disgrace to the noble scientific principle.

Let's look at scientific research and safety and efficacy studies for a moment.

I trust you remember the highly marketed and now infamous drug Vioxx. Merck was found corrupting their study data and manipulating the results to show a better outcome over the control group. And the drug was found to be a killer. Yet it took years for all this to be revealed.

It costs up to a hundred million dollars for a new drug to pass FDA approval. With that kind of money on the line, as well as drug companies' freedom to advertise their product over the nightly news and create the demand, you can bet they're going to do everything in their power to make sure that drug hits market.

So how does one know if a study in a peer reviewed scientific journal, which may have connections to the company or institution behind the research, is legit?

  1. Follow the money. Who is funding the study? If it's a university, what department, and what ties does this department have to the outcome of the study? Do any of the researchers reveal a conflict of interest in their bios? You'll be amazed how many so-called unbiased researchers sit on boards of companies or organizations who would profit from a positive or negative outcome of a study.

    Also look at any potential nepotism conflicts -- i.e. a researcher's spouse or sibling working for the institution funding the research -- and the history of the funding group. Have they hired or paid consulting fees to researchers in the past who have worked on studies they funded?

    Any one of these potential red flags should raise doubt about the professionalism and integrity of the researchers and their study.

  2. Common sense. While it's an excellent sign for the integrity of science when a study has a surprising conclusion contradictory to established knowledge, it's something else entirely when the results are outrageous or clearly skewed for the benefit of a corporation, or an entire industry.

    Just look at the "science" behind tobacco and nicotine before the cigarette industry could no longer hold the floodgates and the truth poured out, or when sugar was "proven" not to make children hyperactive (ask any teacher about that one!). And most recently we have the Corn Refining Industry of America buying science the way the Mob used to buy judges to prop up high fructose corn syrup as perfectly benign and safe.

    Sometimes a study may just get things wrong or may be misleading; there may be no corruption involved. In the case of the sugar study, you have to take a deeper look at the protocols and logistics of the research.

    What was the control group? What was the sample size? Was this conducted under controlled "laboratory" conditions (which surely would have colored the results)? Were actual sweets used, or just sucrose dissolved in water? Did the researchers take into account the fact that today's children consume more high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener than plain old sugar?

Keeping a critical eye on all things is important in coming to a reasoned conclusion.

Of course the above two steps apply to all claims, not just double-blind, placebo controlled, peer-reviewed studies. You'll want to hone your skepticism skills when reviewing diet pills, bodybuilding powders, energy drinks, vitamins, nutritional supplements, etc.

Religious Suppression within Science

What's even uglier than the rampant greed, corruption, and manipulation of data is the persecution and suppression of new scientific ideas or theories, as well as the stunning, utter lack of intellectual curiosity among the scientific "consensus."

Carl Sagan warned about this sort of intimidation decades ago:

There are many hypotheses in science that are wrong. That's perfectly all right; it's the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny. The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that many of his ideas were wrong or silly or in gross contradiction to the facts; rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system, and the history of our study of the solar system shows clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources. (Sagan, Cosmos)

What's perhaps the most bizarre twist to this mutilation of the scientific principle is the elitism and sheer arrogance that's sprung up as a byproduct of the corruption.

Perhaps this is nothing new, however. Dr. Ralph Moss writes,

Resistance to criticism is nothing new in medicine. "Cancer research has […] become so isolated and so entrenched that, without being aware of it, the researcher now almost instinctively regards those who criticize his opinion, question his authority, or adopt other methods of working, not as fellow workers, but as amateurs, as 'outsiders,' or even as positive enemies," the researcher Dr. William H. Woglom wrote in the early 1930s. Not much has changed since then. (Moss, The Demise of HRT)

Since when has being a scientist been like being a member of a secret society? Since when has your profession been a rank badge you wear proudly on your arm, or a billy club you brandish over someone with whom you have a disagreement?

"Well, I'm a Scientist, and you need to leave the Science to me and my colleagues. You do not understand and what you're saying is dangerous. I know you're stupid, but I'm warning you to keep your mouth shut, or else."

You see this attitude all the time in debates about controversial topics, such as the childhood vaccine schedule that sees a new round of shots added every other year; hormone replacement therapy; chemotherapy, radiation, and cancer diagnostic tests; genetic modified organisms; cell phone usage and potential cancer risks; H1N1; and even global warming*.

I'm a writer by trade and accreditation, and I hold a degree in English literature. What if I went around verbally lashing people the way some of these "scientists" do, and what if I acted like I knew everything and had all the answers in my field?

"Well, I'm a Writer, and you have no background in the English language. You have no business attempting to analyze Paradise Lost, much less even think about touching The Faerie Queene. Scholars have been interpreting these works for years; you will only muddy their important papers and damage general literacy with your crude layman analyses."

I'd be laughed out of the room if I ever behaved in that fashion, and rightly so.

It's pretty amazing what we "laymen" accept, especially from authorities who are supposed to be watching out for us and our health.

The Skeptic Menace

Now that we've discussed the good and the bad of skepticism and science, it's time to address the ugly: The Skeptic.

If the scientific-industrial complex had a legion of shock troops, they would be Skeptics. In a disgusting contrast to the pursuit of scientific truth, these guys are defenders of the status quo, mouthpieces of industry, obnoxious know-it-all's, and Internet bullies. Their science is a Science with a trademark, and they defend their patented faith and evangelize with the zeal of Spanish Inquisitors.

You're probably thinking right now, Your entire article is about skepticism and how people should be more skeptical. How is a "Skeptic" different than a person utilizing skepticism in the decision-making process?

There are very rigid rules when it comes to being a Skeptic. You have to hate all of the following things. And I don't mean just not like these things, you have to ridicule, mock, and attempt to destroy anyone who's involved in the below subjects, whether it's just a passing interest or it's someone's career choice. And your passion for despising all these things is as vehement and reality-detached as a Holden Caulfield internal monologue.

In no particular order, here are all the things The Skeptic wants to destroy:

  1. Yoga
  2. Meditation
  3. Prayer
  4. Religion
  5. Spirituality (in any way, shape, or form)
  6. Near Death Experiences
  7. Belief in the supernatural, paranormal, or extraterrestrials
  8. Astrology
  9. The self-help movement
  10. Herbs, as medicinal
  11. Essential oils
  12. The organic food and local farm movement
  13. Non FDA approved supplements (of any kind)
  14. Herbalists
  15. Chiropractors
  16. Homeopathy
  17. Naturopathy
  18. Aromatherapy
  19. Acupuncture
  20. Acupressure
  21. Any type of alternative medicine or anything that could compete with "evidence-based scientific medicine"
  22. Midwifery
  23. Homebirthing
  24. Parental rights in regard to children's health care decisions
  25. The Internet, for the most part (because we as "the unwashed masses" will be led astray by "quacks" and "pseudoscience")
  26. Home schooling
  27. The self-taught man or woman (unless of course you happen to be a fellow Skeptic)
  28. Common sense (these idiots call it superstition)
  29. Pseudoscience! (Said with the zeal of a Templar in Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven when they cry out, "Blasphemy, blasphemy!" Anything parading as legit science, but in Skepticese it's a bogus term to refer to anything they don't like or agree with)
  30. Harry Potter (only if your name is Richard Dawkins, the boss-mother of all Skeptics and their very own one-eyed king, who has made such thoughtful and subtle documentaries with titles like The Root of All Evil? and The Enemies of Reason)

Quite a list, huh?

It's not all-inclusive, and certainly not every Skeptic feels the same way about Harry Potter as Richard Dawkins does.

According to an interview with the U.K.'s Telegraph, Dawkins stated, "I don't know what to think about magic and fairy tales," and that he wants to examine "bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards." He goes on to say, "I think it is anti-scientific -- whether that has a pernicious effect, I don't know. I think looking back to my own childhood, the fact that so many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes, whether that has a sort of insidious affect on rationality, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's something for research." (telegraph.co.uk)

Maybe I should add "fiction" to my above list as well.

I admit I am hyperbolizing, but these guys really are radical. If the science-industrial-complex had Jihadists, it would be Skeptics. While they haven't done their equivalent of detonating a suicide bomb on a bus or burning down a Family Planning clinic, they are major contributors to the stagnation of quality science, and chances are you've come into contact with one.

Sadly for the rest of us Skeptics abound in almost every topic of discussion on the Internet. You'll always know when dealing with one when they bring up their Holy Communion, with is Logic. They'll say things like "logical fallacy," "ad hominem attack," "arrogance of ignorance," "emotional response," "non-sequitor," etc. Every single one I've ever had the misfortune to cross paths with have been unstable people who are rude, dismissive, judgmental, and totally hypocritical.

My logic teacher back in college had a very good point about logic: always be wary of those who carry logic like a shield, because their arguments are usually naked.

Plus, squealing about logic all the time is kinda like fighting monsters. Wield the shield and sword so often, bring down enough monsters with Holy Logic, and after a while you'll become a monster yourself -- abusing logic left and right with your own ad hominem attacks (personal insults) and never-ending pleas to authority ("case closed," "Science has spoken," "that question has been asked and answered").

If a Skeptic were truly exercising real logic and proper conduct, would they behave like adult versions of the classroom know-it-all? Honestly, do you see Mr. Spock or Data acting this way, or Richard Feynman (who blew the cover off Nasa's mishandling of the Challenger accident), or J. Robert Oppenheimer, who quoted from the Bhagavad Gita?

The joke is on the Skeptic himself, because he has turned what he loves most (science) into what he hates most (religion); science has become Science(TM), complete with religious zealotry, suppression, persecution, and extremism. There's also the Dogma and the Doctrine, complete with logic-seeped mantras. The only things missing are the silk robes and bishop miters.

I make no bones about it. I believe the average, self-proclaimed Skeptic is A.) an extremist, B.) obnoxious, and C.) the greatest danger to the pursuit of scientific truth and knowledge. This is because they refuse any form whatsoever of self examination or criticism, and they refuse to look at the possibility that their beloved system may have some catastrophically corrupt loopholes which allow greed and industry manipulation to taint the scientific process.

I find Richard Dawkins' stance on Harry Potter not only outrageous and totally out of touch with reality, but very chilling. What sort of psycho would want to "research" the effect of fairy tales and "nonscientific" literature on children? I'm a fiction writer myself who has written some gruesome stuff, and I'm trembling at the idea.

There's another group of people who feel the same way about Harry Potter.

While they each would like to see the same end, their reasons are about as polar opposite as you can get. This group would also like to see Harry Potter and all forms of supernatural, mythological, or fantastical children's literature swept away. Not because of any "fairy tale" taint on a child's ability for "rationality," but because Harry Potter is witchcraft, and their Bibles clearly state that anything involved with witchcraft must be destroyed.

Richard Dawkins may not be so uncomfortable at a Harry Potter book burning after all.

* Michael Crichton was a big critic of global warming, and I do not share his views on that. Global warming is a good example, however, of the idea of "scientific consensus." I have seen evidence of global warming in coral reefs that bleach and essentially become lifeless over two or so years, and the temperature change in the water certainly seems to be culpable. These are reefs that have existed for thousands and thousands of years and as far as I know no scientific evidence exists for a massive dying out of an entire reef in the coral foundation skeleton.

So I do not agree with Crichton about global warming, though I absolutely concur with his argument about the notion of scientific consensus.

That said, however, I will keep an open mind, and if conclusive evidence for another explanation is offered, I'll certainly take whichever theory has more evidence. Unless some institution, science think-tank, or corporation dukes me half a million in grant money, and then my position will not change. :)

4-13-10 Update

A wonderful and shining example of skeptic fundamentalism and industry shilling showed up on CNN Online's front page and I couldn't resist sharing it as it so perfectly nails down my point.

Note the title: FEAR OF SCIENCE WILL KILL US [ALL!] (sung to the tune of Bob Dylan's The Hurricane... "cries out My GOD they've killed them all!") The article is rife with alarmism, one-sided views, strawman arguments, and reads like an extremist Pro-Life treatise or declaration of war on abortion providers.

  • Attack on organic foods without supplying any real evidence, just condescending slams on the organic movement? Check.

  • Identifies the growing and overwhelming obesity epidemic yet dismisses any non Scientific-Industrial Complex attempt to correct it and only supports the status quo? Check.

  • Science as an abstract, which is always good and pure and must be interpreted to us unwashed masses by pontiffs like him? Check.

  • The holy mother church of Science is under siege? Check.

  • Genetic modified food = awesome and world-saving, absolutely nothing wrong with it at all, and it's beyond questioning? Check.

  • Sucking up to industry super-giants like Monsanto and perhaps the biggest leviathan of all, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation? Oh yeah, baby, that's a big ten-four.

Be sure to check out the comments at the bottom as well. The skeptic drones are out in force, spewing vitriol and making the same patronizing, reactionary, fact-devoid argument over and over and not once showing a shred of self examination.

I'd like to thank Mr. Specter for providing me with this amazing spectacle that so perfectly illustrates my points.

To conclude, here is one of Urban Dictionary's definitions for the apparent slang term "dawkins."

An act of extreme hubris and hypocracy, in which someone vehemently opposed to something uses the exact same methods and arguments as the object of their scorn to achieve their own ends.
from Richard Dawkins, the noted evolutionary biologist, curmudgeon and deiaphobe who is EVANGELICAL in wanting to CONVERT people to athiesm.

Works cited:

Yorgey, Cassandra. Inside Accounts of James Ray Sweat Lodge Tragedy and Retreat. http://www.examiner.com/x-11245-Philadelphia-Speculative-Fiction-Examiner~y2009m10d16-Breaking-news-Inside-accounts-of-James-Ray-sweat-lodge-tragedy-and-retreat

Crichton, Michael. "Aliens Cause Global Warming." Lecture at California Institute of Technology.

Moss, Ralph. The Great Mammography Debate. http://chetday.com/mammographydebate.htm

Sagan, Carl. Cosmos: Episode 4, Heaven and Hell.

Moss, Ralph. The Demise of HRT. http://chetday.com/demiseofhrt.htm

Beckford, Martin. Harry Potter Fails to Cast Spell over Professor Richard Dawkins. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell-over-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html




Disclaimer: Throughout this website, statements are made pertaining to the properties and/or functions of food and/or nutritional products. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and these materials and products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.