Warning; offensive, but true

I am getting increasingly passionate about the movement called Skepticism, although I would prefer a title something more like Empirical Rationalism. Essentially, skeptics argue that any claim should be backed up with evidence and subjected to critical thinking.

In practice, it means that skeptics seek to counter claims made by such alternative "thinkers" as homeopaths, spoonbenders, mediums, psychics, and dowsers. The basic skeptical response to such people is to say "Oh yeah? Prove it." For example, the estimable James Randi has had a million bucks on offer for years to anybdy who can display any paranormal ability under proper double-blind procedures. Guess what? He's still got it.

This is a little awkward, because I am aware that I am attacking beliefs that friends hold dear. However, when one sees "alternative" therapies being funded by the NHS I get very irate. there's a reason they're called alternative - if they worked, they'd just be called therapies.

By extension, if we learned to analyse the claims of the untrustworthy using the best critical tools available then we would be far better equipped to debunk their claims. I'm not just talking about Uri Geller types here - I'm talking about the media and politics here, and, yes, religion too.

Some links, if you're interested:

James Randi - there's heaps of his stuff on YouTube, too
Bad science column in the Guardian
Hilarious Guardian article on what happens when the media chooses to follow an agenda for its own purposes

Sorry to get a bit ranty. If this annoyed you, I suggest you avoid the subject when I've had a couple of beers. That's when I get really irritating.