Comments on: Be Skeptical

By: Smoke Is Pouring Out Of My Ears | Heaving Dead Cats

Smoke Is Pouring Out Of My Ears | Heaving Dead Cats — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:31:04 +0000

[...] has been a great day for building foundations. I’m working on a good follow-up to Be Skeptical, but I really needed to put more time into it than I was able to allow. So it’s half done, [...]

By: Even More Skeptical | Heaving Dead Cats

Even More Skeptical | Heaving Dead Cats — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:29:51 +0000

[...] I talked about being skeptical. I wanted to show the importance of thinking for yourself, and not taking everything at face value. [...]

By: Even More Skeptical | Believers Anonymous

Even More Skeptical | Believers Anonymous — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:47:02 +0000

[...] I talked about being skeptical. I wanted to show the importance of thinking for yourself, and not taking everything at face value. [...]

By: Smoke Is Pouring Out Of My Ears | Believers Anonymous

Smoke Is Pouring Out Of My Ears | Believers Anonymous — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 06:04:05 +0000

[...] « Be Skeptical Aug 17 2008 [...]

By: Fruitloop

Fruitloop — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 05:04:45 +0000

This exchange is so interesting that I think I’ll mull this over and blog about it again in my next post, and reply to you all properly that way. Stay tuned!
And thanks, guys, for the comments. Certainly excellent food for thought.

By: FeebleLance

FeebleLance — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 04:16:01 +0000

Thanks for that link Mark.

The devil’s advocate hat is never a bad thing, assuming of course you have a logical goal, which you seem to.

Your right that none of it should be taken at face value. I was simply (and quite generically, as it seems to be the case) asserting that the given example makes a case for why one should be skeptical of such things.

You are most certainly correct in that one shouldn’t be assumed as correct over the other given what information we have here, nor should it be presented as such.

As for people understanding chemical effects. While I’d still LIKE to think that people would understand, you’ve pointed out quite clearly (and easily) that they don’t. I missed that connection within her post and damn thing could have bitten me too!

All the more reason to stand by my bottom line on such a thing: If you read something akin to this, and you’re concerned for any reason, play skeptical by talking to your doctor about it.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 03:45:09 +0000

*still wearing his Devil’s advocate hat*

FeebleLance, if the point is to not take things at face value, why was the info on MayoClinic.com taken at face value? How is Sam’s reading of one article which mentioned research any different from FruitLoop’s rebuttal, which also just referred to second-hand information. At least Sam had more detailed information.

I know I’m reading into this quite deeply, but well, isn’t that the point of skepticism?

The table provides a great summary of how much caffeine someone might be consuming, but what if the research into the affects of that caffeine were wrong? If that’s the case the table doesn’t help much.

And frankly not everyone realises that chemical effects vary. If that were the case Sam wouldn’t have freaked out about the article he read. Why should he be concerned about what might happen to him if he knew the effects might not be the same as for the people in the study (or an elephant)?

It’s great that you’re showing some critical thinking Fruitloop, and helping others to do the same. But please don’t stop at an authoritative appearance, such as displayed by MayoClinic. Why do they “seem like a good choice”? Why should we believe anything on their site any more than we’d believe a Times Online article which also references a seemingly reputable source? (there are reasons, but you haven’t shown that other people should determine them for themselves)

Incidentally, here’s the Red Bull research: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2008.05.055