[.ca] The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange ... (ISBN 0471272426)

THINK FOR YOURSELF!:
In this world of enormous information, vast data-clusters, metadata and junk everywhere one needs an organised technology of how to separate fact from fiction. This is what this great book offers you. Having been a Scientologist for many years had fried my brain. When I was out this cult I wasn't able to think like a normal, reason-intended person anymore. All this bizarre psycho/spiritual counselling had fried the logical part of my brain. One good day I bumped into the Skeptic's Dictionary website.... I was illuminated like the horizon at sunset! Finally a digestable approach on how to really THINK FOR YOURSELF! The chapters on "Logic and Perception" I found the most valuable, the rest of the articles are applications of them directed toward various practices like Scientology. The review of Oct 28,2003 is clearly written by a Scientologist, all defense of Scientology with regards to critical thought is that one must study the works of L. Ron Hubbard for himself and then judge. But this is just a cheap way to capture you. If you still have a critical view they'll just say you didn't understand it and let you study even more UNTIL YOU ACCEPT. This is one of the mechanisms of deception wich is explained in the Skeptic's Dictionary. Safeguard yourself for various practices like Rorhsach tests, Scientology, Dianetics, Iridology, pschycic healing, telepathy and other junk and "BUY, READ AND APPLY" the Skeptic's Dictionary!

Study Weston's "A Rulebook for Arguments" instead.:
The book is intended to be a critical examination of "strange beliefs, amusing deceptions & dangerous delusions." Thus it is bad that the book contains several factual errors. In addition, the author examines many topics superficially and criticizes them mechanically. Regarding Rolfing, for example, the author tells us on pages 340-341 that "Dr. Rolf claimed she found a correlation between muscular tension and pent-up emotions." and "Has this claim of the muscular/emotional connection been demonstrated by any controlled studies? No, but there are many anecdotes and testimonials verifying Rolfing." But this is not correct. It took me less than two minutes of search in research databases to find a controlled study that confirmed the benefits of Rolfing and the correlation between muscular tension and blocked emotions. See: Physical Therapy 1988 Sep; 68(9):1364-70. "Shifts in pelvic inclination angle and parasympathetic tone produced by Rolfing soft tissue manipulation." by Cottingham JT, Porges SW & Richmond K. Further, the book should have had a more detailed table of contents, the topics should have been structured under different themes, and some of the topics should not have been included in the book since they have scientific support, such as Rolfing. I suggest you study Anthony Weston's "A Rulebook for Arguments" instead of this book and learn how to think critically for yourself.

A Masterpiece:
Here's something you won't read everyday (actually, you may never read anything like it again!). I'm a psychic healer who thinks Bob Carroll's Skeptic's Dictionary is an absolutely indispensable resource. Indispensable. I first found the Skeptic's Dictionary online as I was searching for responsible information on some of the truly questionable things I see in my New Age/metaphysical culture. Unless you're a part of the culture - or unless you're a skeptic keeping an eye on the New Age culture - you really wouldn't believe the amount of untested theories, urban legends, wild ideas, and just plain irresponsible stuff that's going around. I've often likened the New Age to the Wild West - I mean, it often feels like open season on consumers here. I struggled for years to find responsible dissent literature in my New Age culture, but the fact is that responsible skeptical questioning simply doesn't exist in the New Age. If I want to get a non-sales-pitch or non-dreamy-eyed version of the latest channeler, spiritual leader, divination protocol, personality typing modality, magic herb, megavitamin, healing gadget, or sacred destination, I can only get that information on the q.t. If I want to research things, I have to call friends who might know a friend who knows a guy who went to the healer or took the vitamin or whatever. That's how New Age skepticism works - it's a person to person process of trial and error. If you are in the New Age, but don't know enough people, you won't have access to this underground consumer protection agency, and you'll probably end up wasting time and money chasing after stuff that just doesn't work (or is dangerous). True consumer protection is not a part of my New Age culture. Everything offered is generally agreed to be healing and harmless, because God or Spirit or Faeries or good Atlanteans are involved - so why should anyone question any of it? Questioning in the New Age is only allowed at the level of gossip - anything more open than that is treated as a sign of rudeness, near-paranoia, or betrayal. Real questioning can actually get you expelled from the culture. So when I needed to question the heck out of the things I saw in the New Age, I had no culturally approved way to proceed. Luckily, I have access to the Internet, so instead of making a fuss or shutting off my mind in response to all the pressure I experienced, I just became quiet and navigated around the Web on my own. Thankfully, I ended up on skepdic.com - the site from which the Skeptic's Dictionary was created. I've read stacks of books by skeptical authors, but I haven't respected too many of them. However, I respect Bob Carroll because his debunking and skepticism aren't bad-tempered attempts to denigrate believers or take the magic out of life (real life is magical enough without any mystical crutches, thanks). Instead, his skepticism is a natural function of his intelligence, his concern for people, and his interest in discovering what's true and what isn't. Sure, Carroll's writing sometimes leans toward sarcasm, but honestly, if you had reseached as much strange material as he has, you'd probably get a bit arch yourself. For me, this isn't just a book - it's a clear example of compassionate information gathering and dissemination. It's cool. Here's my suggestion for New Age people or very devout people who need to be able to question what they have been taught. Flip to a topic in the Skeptic's Dictionary that you already KNOW is a hoax (all New Age people and all religious people can identify hoaxes - however, I've noticed that their training generally keeps their hoax-detection behaviors to a minimum). Don't flip to topics that cover your most cherished beliefs. Instead, stay in the safe areas. Take a look at how Bob Carroll handles the things you've already debunked on your own, and see if you agree with his approach and his research (and his humor). Then you'll know if this book is for you - and if it is, perhaps you can then tread into touchier, sacred cow areas with the sense that you'll be treated with respect. As a full-fledged member of the New Age culture for over thirty years, I've seen so many instances of chicanery, half-truths, and exploitation that I'm just heart-sick. If my culture can't be skeptical of itself (and it can't), then someone else has to be. I'm really grateful that a person of Bob Carroll's integrity, scholarship, and humor stepped up to the plate. The Skeptic's Dictionary is an indispensable resource. Bravo, Dr. Carroll.

What is this about?:
This review of the Rorschach Inkblot Method (RIM) is astoundingly off base and has little to do with the actually method. First of all it is not a "test" although for ease of conversation is often referred to this way. This fundamental error is somewhat understandable but starts the critique off on a suspect foot. The Rorschach is a method for better understanding numerous personality constructs (among other things) but the author is claiming it is measuring things that it is simply not intended to sample. The Rorschach is not left up to the examiner's interpretation, it is not a measure of creative expression, is not supposed to predict "committed actions", and outside of movement responses (M, m, and FM) it is not a projective test. People who understand the method know this. The blots do not need to be 100% "formless" or ambiguous! Where does the author get this? Why the interest in form? What about the other percepts? Now we really get outlandish because the author calls the blots "superfluous" based on his own assumption that the "therapist" is doing the interpretation. This is not the case but I suppose he meant to single out people who give the test but don't know how to administer it. It gets worse because it appears that the author is over focused on content ("I see a bumble bee", or "That's an arrogant know-it-all looking back at me"). The RIM is not all about the content! Can the author guess what the majority of the RIM is actually about? Even worse is that a single variable is NEVER used to make grand over generalizations. The "Dawes 148" reference (It would be nice to see the year here) is a good example of this repeated problem. The power of the RIM is the combination of clusters and signs. Structural summary man, structural summary! The whole idea of "deceiving others" by making up responses demonstrates further lack of understanding on the author's part. Don't you have to know what the RIM is doing so you can deceive or alter a response in a desired way? The fact that the author thinks the test is all about content presents further problems with his theory that you can "deceive" the "test". If the author does not know the fundamentals about the RIM how is a layperson supposed to deceive it? Remember, it is not a traditional test. You cannot cheat. This brings me to my last point, not that we have time to exhaust the misconceptions printed in the author's work. The idea that a person can give "good or bad responses" is overwhelming and convincing evidence that the author has no business writing about the RIM. The RIM does not, nor does the examiner label these responses good or bad. We'll leave the labeling up to the author. Besides, the subject's responses are not compared to the examiner's interpretations. Again, just wrong. It is an open-ended method with no good, bad, right, or wrong responses. This is clearly told to people before administration and has no bearing on scoring. Is this guy even talking about the Rorschach? Critiques like this seem to be attempts to fill space. They certainly have little to do with the actual Rorschach. I don't mind constructive criticism but I would expect the criticism to be informed and for the sake of education - in the ball park! This work is a disaster.

Solid overview, easy to read, not too much depth:
Bob Carroll has put together a solid overview of mystical, paranormal, and magical beliefs, deceptions, and hoaxes. He takes a simple point of view in asking simple questions -- what is the truth? What can be proven? Where might the "believers" be deceiving themselves? -- AND, he clearly also is not so biased to think that all beliefs are wrong. What can't be explained away, debunked, or proven wrong is an area of faith, either beyond the realm of science or remaining for science to figure out in the future. I've yet to come up with a topic that Carroll has omitted, though other reviewers have, apparently. His entries are generally enough information for me, though he maintains plenty of references should anyone actually want to read that much more about anthroposophic medicine (or any other topic). Certainly topics like Argument from Design and Creationism are covered ad infinitum, ad nauseum, from various viewpoints elsewhere; thus, the Skeptics Dictionary provides a simply solid overview, definition, and description of these, with plenty of references. All in all, this is an excellent book. I think it's not only for "skeptics", but also for those who want to know if they are being scammed. Scan this book before sending cash to Miss Cleo, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, or any other fortune tellers or psychics.