They're coveting my Skeptical Enquirer!

[sarahmichigan]

Last week while I was at the gym, I unwisely left my Skeptical Enquirer  sitting in an unlocked public locker, and when I went back to fetch it, a curious gym-goer had nabbed it and was showing it to his companions. I did manage to win it back, but only after he asked me why I liked it and where he could get a copy.

It's not surprise that he coveted my Skeptical Enquirer - I LOVE this magazine! What other magazine covers topics from explaining the mysterious noises in a "haunted house" to exploring the pseudoscience in Super Hero stories to debunking the supposed link between vaccines and autism?

The current SE he was coveting was taking a critical look at unsupported claims of chiropractic and providing a clear-headed explanation of why homeopathy doesn't have any effect beyond the placebo effect. I don't think the article on homeopathy would convince the die-hard believers in homeopathy, but I think it did a good job of laying out the problems behind the theory for those who are still on the fence about it.

SE also does a lot of basic education in the scientific method and philosophy of science and examines the intersection of religion and science and even art and science. In fact, the art and science issue from late 2006 was probably one of my favorites. 

You can read some, but not all, of the articles from past issues here, if you're curious:

http://csicop.org/si/online.html

Comments

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

Basically, most of the articles on chiropractic in SE say that chiropractic DOES work for back issues, but that their claims that they can solve other conditions (they used rheumatoid arthritis and high blood pressure as examples) were not supported at all.

There is, apparently, a small contingent of chiropractors out there who believe that chiropractors should stick to back/spinal issues and not make claims about other conditions, but they're in the minority, and greedy money-suckers, apparently, are in the majority.