Book reccomendations to counter AM

swamp

New Blood
S
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
2
Hi folks. My first post here. Have enjoyed the group of topics and many threads. I am making some slow progress reconciling my science based beliefs with those of my girlfriend who leans strongly toward various AMs mainly Chinese medicine and herbalism. Of course we are both passionate and can get down to some good (bad) arguing. We have each agreed to read a book by the others choosing. I would like recommendations from the group to refine my short list to a selection. Am open to books not listed here. Her background is science, a biology degree in fact, but still buys into much AM. The short list so far is:
The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America, Steven Barrett
Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations, John Diamond
Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, Michael Shermer
How We Know What Isn't So, Thomas Gilovich

Her choice for my reading was, The Web That Has No Weaver: Understanding Chinese Medicine by Ted Kaptchuk. Comments on that as well as helping me with my choice are appreciated.
 
Thanks to all except Anti-Hypeman

Anti-Hypeman,

Your suggestion (sarcasm) are neither funny nor constructive. I am truly sorry my wonderful friend, who you know nothing about, has offended your beliefs so much as to make your suggestion, "It sounds to me like she needs to start with ABC's with Elmo or maybe Everybody Poops." Have you read any of the books I am considering or her choice to me, authored by an Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard?
 
Swamp:
I've used the last two books on your list to teach "Critical Thinking" at the undergraduate level over the years. And Sagan's "Demon Haunted World".
Keep up the good work.
 
brodski said:
A fantastic book, it's what realy turned me on to sceptisim.
Click to expand...

I thought that book was ok but not as good as I was expecting it to be. It dwelt a lot on geo-political issues which I sometimes felt it struggled to make relevant. It was like it was trying to put forward some sort of unified theory of skepticism encompassing everything from homeopathy to the strategies of the Cold War. In that way it had a similar feel to conspiracy theory and other pseudo-science publications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom