My Response to an Alt-Muddled Friend

While spinning around the net today, I found this, which I liked. But I have one problem with skepticism which I'll address below.

My Response to an Alt-Muddled Friend: She uses Nikken magnets and says she wouldn't trust any studies on magnetism that didn't use that particular brand because they were better. I sent her a list of links with studies specifically done with Nikken magnets, with information debunking magnets in general and specifically Nikken magnets, and about the Nikken company and regulatory action taken against them for false claims. She said she didn't have time to read them, but it wouldn't change her mind anyway, because Nikken magnets worked for her. She ended the discussion, agreeing to disagree, saying, "You have raised some valid points and made me think about my choices, which is good. I hope that some of the points I've made have done the same for you." I answered:

I'm afraid your points have not made me think, because I've heard them all before, and have already researched the facts, evaluated the arguments and rejected them. I work with these issues on a daily basis; I've read lots of books and articles, I've exchanged e-mails with world-class experts on both sides and I've heard the best that alternative medicine has to say for itself. The fact that our discussion made you think but didn't make me think tells me that I have read what you have about alternative medicine and you have not read what I have about alternative medicine, pseudoscience, critical thinking and the psychology of how people deceive themselves.

I'm surprised to see you relying on testimonials and "what works for you" in alternative medicine, just as I would be surprised to see you depend on a friend's opinion when choosing a car instead of checking out sources such as consumer reports and comparative statistics on reliability, safety, repair history and customer satisfaction. It strikes me as comparable to reading the first three names on a class roster and assuming the class is all women because the first three names happened to be women; you don't get good statistics if your sample size is too small. I don't imagine you depend on testimonials when deciding whom to vote for; I suspect you rely more on things like the candidate's platform, his actions in office, and his voting history.

Small children believe in the tooth fairy. It "works" for them, because they get money every time they put a tooth under their pillow. But as they get older, they usually want to know the "truth." I asked a gullible friend what she would think of me if I told her I still believed in the tooth fairy. She said, "I'd think that was sweet." I don't think it would be sweet, I think it would be pitiful. No matter how satisfying a false belief may be, I prefer the truth.

Some people have the philosophy that they can create their own reality; some prefer wishful thinking, random trial and error, and intuition to rational thinking and testing. The scientific method leads to one consensus answer; all other methods lead to several different, conflicting answers. I have come to believe that the scientific method, while imperfect, is the only valid tool for understanding reality. I like nothing better than changing my mind, because it means I was mistaken and I have been able to correct my mistake. Just as I gave up the tooth fairy, I have given up a whole slew of things, from the reliability of memory to ESP, because my original beliefs were contradicted by the evidence I found.

To rely on testimonials and to not wonder how things work or what science says about them is like having a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica and using it only to press flowers. Our brains are capable of much more and I think it is far more satisfying to use them to look at information that challenges our preconceptions and increases our knowledge.

I do my utmost to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out. I'm ready to accept any alternative treatment as soon as it is supported by convincing evidence (by the standards of the scientific method). I won't argue with you about alternative medicine any more, but I do hope you will read some of the arguments from the other side.

I have an issue with skepticism and I suppose the scientific method itself because of my belief that any topic has two sets of statements which can be made about it:
Set 1 consists of all those statements about which examination [of the subject] of the statement will make no change in the truth value of that statement.
Set 2 consists of all those statements about which examination [of the subject] of the statement will make some change in the truth value of that statement.

The problem I have is trying to figure out whether a statement is possibly part of set 2. For example, are some, all, or none of the statements involving Chi members of Set 2 or members of Set 1? How does one discover which set a statement belongs to? Then there is the meta-question: If a statement, A, which defines statement B as belonging to set 2 exists, is statement A a member of set 1 or set 2?

[Sidenote: And I suppose there also exists those statements which change their truth value just by making the statement itself, as the Torah claims about the name of God and the Tao-Te-Ching says about the Tao: The Tao which can be spoken of is not The Tao.]

A skeptic would probably say that Set 2 is an empty set, but I don't know how she/he would prove that.