Best products from r/skeptic

> Okay look here's what I'm prepared to do.

> Link me to the evidence. Do not link me to a website and just claim that the evidence is there somewhere. I am not going to trawl though whole websites trying to find the data that falsifies materialism/physicalism. Link to directly to the specific evidence. Link me to specifics that say something like "medium xyz under these test conditions was able to do abc", and other forms of evidence like that.

Awesome. There are virtually two competing books (in my mind and for your purposes, that is) when it comes to this. One is this, and the other is this. I've only read the latter, but I hear very good things about the former as well. However, I still recommend the latter. If you can walk away having read the latter and not even be impressed with the state of the data, I would be very impressed and would really like to hear your stated reasons (as would the author, I'm sure).

Of course I understand it if you don't want to buy a book, at least not until you've seen that there's something to all of this. What I would recommend then is to ask your local library to get it, and then borrow it from there. If that doesn't work, check around. Some libraries may have it (I really don't know though).

To get you started, though, here are a few pieces of evidence:

"Sabom had interviewed 32 patients who reported NDEs in which they seemed to be watching what was going on around their body. Most of these were cardiac patients who were undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) at the time of their NDE. Sabom then interviewed 25 "control" patients, "seasoned cardiac patients" who had not had an NDE during their previous cardiac-related crises, and asked them to describe a cardiac resuscitation procedure as if they were watching from a third-person perspective. Among all these patients, 80% of the "control" patients made at least one major error in their descriptions, whereas none of the NDE patients made any. Moreover, six of 32 NDE patients related accurate details of idiosyncratic or unexpected (to them) events during their resuscitation. For example, one man, who developed ventricular fibrillation in the coronary care unit, said (among many other things) that the nurse picked up "them shocker things" and "touched them together" and then "everybody moved back away from it [the defibrillator]". As Sabom explained, rubbing the defibrillator paddles together to lubricate them and standing back from the defibrillator to avoid being shocked are common procedures.
An even more difficult challenge to ordinary psychological or physiological theories of NDEs comes from cases in which experiencers report that, while out of the body, they became aware of events occurring at a distance or that in some other way would have been beyond the reach of their ordinary senses even if they had been fully and normally conscious. … Some of these accurate perceptions included unexpected or unlikely details, such as a woman in childbirth who reported being out of her body and seeing her mother in the waiting room smoking a cigarette; according to the daughter, the mother (a non-smoker) "admitted much later that she had 'tried' one or two because she was so nervous!""

-- Kelly, Edward F. & Emily (2006), Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century, page 389

Here's another: http://sedna.no.sapo.pt/death_scresearch/pdf_docs/12.3_cook_greyson_stevenson.pdf

Beyond the veridical debate, there's many are many other aspects and features of the NDE that does not strictly refute materialism/physicalism, but does refute everything we though we knew about the brain and how it relates to consciousness. Check out the nine lines of evidence here for a summary of what those arguments are.

> I'm also wondering if you've posted on other websites using the name "Interesting Ian". Trying to find data myself last night I came across someone else who was also making the very same claims you do, and still not presenting any actual evidence.

No, LOL, but I do know of the guy, and I've had a few chats with him. I can tell you that while we both agree that the evidence's there, we differ on our interpretation of it beyond that.

Any questions are of course welcome. Good luck.

Yes, he moved towards the center from further left. That doesn't mean he's disparaging the insights of those on left, or isn't himself still largely in that mindset.

You're absolutely right, left to itself conservatism leads to consolidation of power and wealth, as well as violence to the outgroups.

That's why his conclusion isn't "everyone should be more conservative", but that there are underlying values both have that are useful to societal health, even if many of the intuitions themselves would be damaging if fully fleshed out.

That's why he's started groups like civil politics and the asteroids club. We need more dialog, to to help one another understand the upsides and downsides of each other's positions better, hopefully to clarify a set of shared values and then to work on creating evidence based policy to bring those values to life.

Without both sides feeling understood by the other, there will only be increased partisanship. The first step into a better world is to be able to understand each other, and convince each other that we get it. Demonizing only serves to create another instance of the out-group you see your opponents as bad for. You have to be good to your out-group, too. ;-)

At the end of the day, I think John Cleese sums it up best. That's what Haidt is on about, the need to stop seeing the other side as the source of all evil in the world, and to recognise they might have some good insights of their own you lack.

Please don't cheapen that word "consensus" with frivolous usage. The origins of religion is a highly contentious topic, and those who study it are absolutely not in full agreement with each other. You are trying to prop up your arguments with the authority of science while denigrating my intelligence. You don't convince people by arguing that way; you only satisfy your urge to crush an opponent.

Here's where we agree, and where you think we disagree:

1. Religion is a natural phenomenon.
   
2. Religion has been a part of human behaviour for tens of thousands of years.
   
   There. Half your post wasn't necessary, Mr./Ms. Read-More-Carefully.
   
   Where we disagree:
   You think religion... "exists because people believe the immaterial intentional entities (minds without bodies, gods.)" In a related concept, you indicate that we naturally ascribe agency to the natural world.
   
   Just so this is abundantly clear: I was arguing that gods are not required for religion. You misread Buddhism is but one example. "Most" Buddhists isn't "all" Buddhists, and "involves" is a far cry from "being the central element of the religion that defines its existence." Many totemic religions from tribal societies also lack gods. You end up having to redefine "gods" to "any supernatural agent" just to get this idea to work.
   
   But let's focus on the idea that it's natural for us to impose agency to things in the natural world, and this leading to the formation of religion. This also is not done in every religion. When it is done, it isn't relevant to every aspect of the religion in question. Even among Christianity, a great deal of worship is devoted to the saints, who were entirely human. Ditto with ancestor worship in Taoism.
   
   We have also seen the rise of new religions, and we know for a fact this idea of ascribing agency to the natural world was not involved in the creation of many of them: Scientology, or the various cults that are centred around extra terrestrials, or people from the future, or not eating (seriously!)
   
   Finally, it doesn't explain why we have the ability to feel transcendence; that feeling we get when our individuality melts away and we "give ourselves" to something greater. Where does that come from? How does that evolve?
   
   But for the sake of completeness, you would likely need to hear an alternative, so here is where I'm coming from. I ascribe to Emile Durkheim's theory of religion. He's a classic sociologist, and formally founded the field of sociology itself.
   
   Just to provide the brief gist:
   
   His definition of religion: "A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
   
   The faithful believe in a force that is outside of themselves, and greater than themselves that enters into them usually during moments of collective ritual, giving them the feeling of transcendence. All religions have this force. It is often called a "god," though other terms are used (mana, ch'i, etc.) This force is the "energy," if you will, of the society of the faithful. In other words, god and society... are one and the same. Society is exterior to the individual, and greater than him. If you denigrate this symbol of their society, you are denigrating the society itself, and they will react accordingly. The morals preached by the religion are the morals that the society unifies under. They hold rituals to reinforce this collective bond, and that is really its purpose. Some things are made sacred (objects, values, people), and the community collects around those things, which become a sort of emblem. Rationality will serve the purpose of the community's religion. And, as I initially stated in my first post, the religion of the day will change as the needs of the society changes. Sometimes the religion itself alters, and other times it is simply abandoned for another one.
   
   We see religious behaviour in cruder moments all the time. The feeling of transcendence occurs among soldiers that fight and die together. They often describe their individuality melting away and becoming "whole" with their brothers in arms. They create a small system of morals and beliefs that are specific just to them. And they even sometimes have rituals.
   
   The same religious behaviour can be seen in revolutionaries who rationalize their oppressors as the ultimate evil. Or in nationalistic patriotism (why does a flag make someone cry? Why does it matter what the founding fathers thought?). Or college fraternities with their initiations and pledges. Or the obsession with all things natural and organic, and neo druidism, and Gwenyth Paltrow getting people to stick odd things up their vaginas. Or Trump supports who see Donald Trump as their saviour from the evils that plague them.
   
   We have evolved the innate ability to unite under an emblem and operate as a cohesive whole. That is religion, and no other animal seems to have it. It's the evolutionary trick that made us the dominant species on earth. It's utter shit for finding the truth of things, but it massively serves the purpose of our survival.
   
   Now, if you want religion to just go away so we can have a purely secular society based on reason, then what you want to believe is that religion is just some kind of fluke originally made to explain the world (and it clearly does a poor job of that). I admire that cause, but I doubt it's viability, and I certainly doubt the premise that's justifying it. Or perhaps I'm just making assumptions about your point of view. A purely rational society is one that I think a lot of skeptics dream of, and you are in this subreddit.
   
   Further reading, if you're interested: Emile Durkheim's "The Elementary Forms of Religious LIfe." Also, Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion."

The most recent XKCD is actually a fantastic illustration of what is probably going on (assuming everything is on the up and up and these studies were well run). The general value for statistical significance (p less than or equal to .05) is completely and utterly arbitrary. (refer to capnrefsmmat post below). It's just a general convention that people in the medical and scientific communities are willing to accept that level of potential error. Therefore, if enough double-blind, placebo controlled trials of homeopathy are conducted, it is a certainty that some will show statistically significant results. That's why one study does not prove or disprove a treatment, a theory, whatever. Instead, you look at the evidence as a whole. And there is a MOUNTAIN of negative trials for homeopathic remedies. I apologize I don't have time to go looking for you, but you should be able to find some to throw back at the individual, plus I imagine some of our friends here in r/skeptic will have a few they can share as well. Good luck.

edit: If you can get hold of a copy, Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst's Trick or Treatment would be a great place to start formulating a rebuttal.

>I just want to point out that the OP here is being hypocritical here.

You say this a lot, but it hasn't actually been true so far.

>She claiming to be a skeptic

I am male.

>but has been citing feminist advocacy research and dogma that's been produced in Women's Studies, which is of a more quasi-religion than it is academia,

Peer-reviewed quasi-religion, roger roger. But Men's Studies is totally legit, right?

>while cherry picking from /r/mensrights in order to attempt to discredit the mens movement.

'Cherry picking' from the most upvoted topics on the front-page of the sub-reddit. It's not like it's any better right now either--pick a time and I'll highlight the numerous problems with intellectual honesty on /r/MensRights issues of the day.

>Here is a good source on the dogma and routine academic fraud and indoctrination that takes place in feminist academic. http://www.amazon.com/Professing-Feminism-Education-Indoctrination-Studies/dp/0739104551

Pop-books don't belong in a skeptical debate, generally, but this one has generated some academic discussion (e.g. here). This type of work to hold a movement to task is very important, and many fields in the social-sciences sphere have proponents that commit similar 'offenses' with matching similar efforts to keep the community in line. You're free to think that feminism as a whole is made up of people that are just dogmatic, but that isn't what this book claims, and that isn't consistent with the reality either. Feminism is a diverse field of academic discourse, there's no conspiracy here.

>And here is a good source on data that is commonly used in the mens movement /r/mensrightslinks

There's nothing wrong with more data, but be careful about drawing conclusions when your sources are all filtered through one point. There's a reason that /r/mensrightslinks is so slow moving, and it isn't because supporters are slow to identify research that is consistent with their view.

>and here is a related academic journal http://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/issue/view/7

This is a new journal that has yet to establish any reputation one way or the other, but their editorial team suggests that this publication could be a key contributor to this debate in the coming years. Open journals like this often have more issues fending off poorly-thought-out research (as a consequence of their desire to publish more ideas and let the community hash out their rigeur), and so far they don't seem to offer any quantitative research, but the qualitative studies that I reviewed briefly appear to be of generally high quality.

> "calling yourself a skeptic"

I'm a skeptic of Monsanto.

I'm a skeptic of the low-fat/multi-grain is good but avocados, coconut fat and grass-fed beef are bad b.s..

I'm a huge skeptic of the dietary information that's being passed around right now.

I'm a huge skeptic of the for-profit health care system. Here's a great example. Four years ago my doctor wanted to put me on statins because my cholesterol was a little high. Cardiac disease is not an issue in my family. My blood pressure is on the low side of normal. My weight is perfect. I work out 3, 4 times a week. There was absolutely no reason to put me on statins. My doctor never even mentioned diet to me. He immediately wanted to put me on statins, many of which have far worse side effects than any issue they would have helped me with. So, that told me a couple of things about my physician. He was either lazy and unprepared about diet & health or he has a pharmaceutical rep coming through on a regular basis giving him samples and he's just pushing their products without accurately addressing my actual health needs. I refused to take statins. And I showed my physician how I dramatically improved all my cardiac lipids through diet alone. After seeing my improvements he said "I guess you don't need to take statins now". He's no longer my physician.

A side note: I worked in hospitals for about 8 years. I dated a nurse who worked at a private practice. It was literally obscene and shocking how much money pharmaceuticals spent to get doctors to prescribe their medications. Every week, at the most expensive restaurant in my area at that time, pharmaceutical reps would host free dinners for the doctors at that restaurant, as they would try to get doctors to prescribe their pills. And quite a few doctors have been indicted for getting kick backs from pharmaceuticals in exchange for prescribing certain meds.

It is literally frightening how easily people sell out their morals and their fellow human beings all for a few silver pieces. Greed is a scary, scary thing.

> "There's no evidence that will convince you"

I'm skeptical of Monsanto's research and testing and motivations. I honestly believe it will take generations to see what the long term health effects are of glyphosate.

It was only 100 years ago or so when our food was not polluted with artificial flavors & colors, preservatives, HFCS, pesticides and many other lovely chemicals created by modern science.

And considering how diet related health issues are exploding at near epidemic levels, I'm skeptical of the safety of the chemicals that are currently in the food chain.

I choose to eat like my great, great grand parents did rather than eat corn that's been GMO'ed to have a pesticide in it.

Here's another reference for you The Wheat Belly. It's a book written by a cardiologist, you know, a fairly educated man who's studied the sciences. He goes into detail on hgow highly processed grain based food, some of it GMO'ed and some of it very selective bread, is killing this nation.

For sure: There is a whole load of woowoo associated with this. Holographic stickers and magic pebbles.

Books: I think this is the best I have read. Quite poppy but well referenced:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Non-Tinfoil-Guide-EMFs-Stupid-Technology/dp/1976109124/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1550402055&sr=8-1&keywords=non+tinfoil

​

As for a discussion, do you agree with these two premises:

1. Our cells communicate internally and externally using EMF.
   
   
2. A connected phone in my pocket will be emitting EMF into my body thousands of times more energetic than the cellular levels in (1).
   
   ​
   
   That for me is that starting point of the discussion.
   
   ​
   
   ​
   
   ​
   
   ​

I suggest the book - Bad Science. The first or second chapter has a section on detox. Not finished with it yet so I can't tell you if there's much more in there relevant to your specific query. So if you just want that answered it'll be a waste of money, but I would recommend it anyways. So far it's been pretty awesome.

Edit: Different link

Interesting.

He mentions Jonathan Haight in the talk. I highly recommend his book The Righteous Mind. It goes into great detail about how and why people believe and defend their beliefs as they do. It is a fantastic book.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307377903?pc_redir=1397219270&robot_redir=1

It's by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, and it refers to the mistakes made by the designers of financial derivative with respect to the probabilty distribution function of certain components within the equations that govern the liability and pay-out. (Yes, really).

The book itself "Fooled By Randomness" is superb and very highly regarded within the financial community. It helps that he (while coming across as a bit pompous sometimes) is a good writer and explains a lot of pretty specialist knowledge that plays a key part in the financial world; and -by extension- the real world.


http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Chance-Markets/dp/0812975219

Wow, I just started watching and one of his intro slides is, "There's lots of fiction about this stuff in movies, so there must be something to it." I can't imagine that he's going to use that as some sort of actual point, but it's kinda sad to see it even brought up...

Edti: Hrm... he's gone on to special pleading and a number of other fallacies.

I feel like a lot of this was covered in Flim Flam and elsewhere. I don't know enough about the specific stuff he's presenting as evidence to comment. It's interesting, but I'd have to look a lot further to be convinced.

Mistakes were made only covers a few fallacies, but with great depth. It's an excellent read. http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909/

The section on magnets starts at 3:55, but there's a great explanation of the difficulty of "why" questions at the beginning.

P.S. I'd like to take this opportunity to recommend Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, if anyone hasn't read it yet. There's also a larger hardcover compilation containing that work and a few others called Classic Feynman (this is the edition I have). He was an amazing person, and there are all sorts of spectacular stories about his time on the Manhattan Project, about investigating the Challenger disaster, and about selecting textbooks out for the California school curriculum (this section may make you rage).

Yeah there are many. Daphne Patai is a good whistle blower on the pseudo science that is women's studies.

Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies

http://www.amazon.com/Professing-Feminism-Education-Indoctrination-Studies/dp/0739104551


Feminism's research and claims on DV have been thoroughly debunked by a number of well respected social scientists in the scientific research community. Here is quick paper on the methods feminist social scientists have been using to bias DV data for decades now.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

Feminism is a pseudo science that relies on advocacy research.


EDIT - And your NOW links aren't citing their sources, just claiming that they exist and fearmongering to manipulate followers into lobbying politicians to oppose bills that would improve fathers rights.

I found this book helpful http://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Against-Logic-Politicians-Journalists/dp/0071446435

It isn't terribly in-depth, but it helped my understand the mindset of thinking logically and seeing where fallacies lay, plus the author has a very good sense of humor which makes the book nice to read.

Sure ... try "Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions"

It also has a great introduction by his friend Isaac Asimov.

Here is a link to it in Amazon, so don't take my word on this, check out the 84 reviews there. http://www.amazon.com/Flim-Flam-Psychics-Unicorns-Other-Delusions/dp/0879751983/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317469950&sr=8-1

It looks really great. I was also considering

http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0716733870

because it looks friendly. How easy is your book to read?

Have you heard of the Afghanistan oil pipeline? I would hope you know about the one built recently in Iraq.

There is some evidence that America could have had an economic motive for replacing the government in Afghanistan. Did this influence America's decision to invade Afghanistan and replace the government?

Oil pipeline?

The Afghanistan Oil Pipeline was a project proposed by several oil companies to transport oil from Azerbaijan and Central Asia through Afghanistan to Pakistan or India.



The Afghanistan oil pipeline project was finally able to proceed in May 2002. This could not have happened if America had not taken military action to replace the government in Afghanistan.

3rd November 1998 - attacks stop US oil pipeline:Up to 80 cruise missiles were fired at Afghanistan and Sudan in August An American-funded training project in Afghanistan has closed down as a result of the US cruise missile attack on the country in August. The programme was funded by the American oil company, Unocal, which was once hoping to be involved in building a gas pipeline across the country from Turkmenistan to Pakistan.BBC News,

"US attack closes US project", 3 November 1998.)

BBC News, "Race to unlock Central Asia's energy riches", 29 December 1997.
"American oil companies, together with Pakistan, have shown strong interest in an alternative route that would carry Turkmen gas, via Afghanistan, to the Pakistani port of Karachi."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/analysis/43219.stm)
...
The Guardian, The new Great Game, 20 October 2003.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/oct/20/oil

Lutz Kleveman (2003), The New Great Game, Atlantic Monthly Press.


AMERICA DEPLOYED MILITARY FORCE TO INSTALL AN "INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED"(I.E. PRO-AMERICAN) AFGHAN GOVERNMENT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1556588.stm

The American-driven invasion of Afghanistan swiftly captured of the country's capital Kabul, enabling the removal of the former Afghanistan government and the establishment of a new government.

Afghan capital, Kabul, conquered by U.S.-led invasion force, November 2001.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1654182.stm

U.N. Conference discusses future of Afghanistan, November 2001.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1662487.stm

U.S. Congress in Washington debates future of Afghanistan, November 2001.

[U.N. appoints leader of new Afghanistan government, December 2001]
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1693379.stm)

U.S. Government, State Department website documents installation of new Afghan government.

United Nations website documents installation of new Afghan government.

Crimes against Logic, by Jamie Whyte. It's really clever and witty.

Edit : you can find a lot of his Times articles here. Be sure to check The five great fallacies and how to spot them.

This book seems like it would address a lot of the shit you're pontificating about. It's quite new and I must admit I haven't read it but I put it on my list after reading positive reviews.

You should both read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre

He gives a brilliant description of random double blind trials, and lays out exactly why they are the gold standard for demonstrating a treatment's efficacy.

It's a wonderfully clear and sober explanation of how the scientific method should be applied to medicine.

Disappointed in this comment section.

Research shows it's worth arguing with science deniers. But tactics matter, and most people are bad at arguing. If you're interested in helping him understand climate change, Citizens' Climate Lobby has excellent communications skills training to help you have more productive conversations with people like him. I have had a lot of success with it.

You can also recommend to him the SGU podcast, or buy him the book.

You can also point out to him that if he's afraid of "MSM," he's probably getting more fake news.

Highly recommend Escaping the Rabbit Hole by Mick West which was written with exactly your situation in mind. It is written in a sympathetic way to help 'friends' discuss conspiracy theories in a way that is non-confrontational and should maximise dialogue. He also includes some very thorough debunking of popular tropes about 9/11 (including AE911 Truth and the insurance claims, IIRR). Sections ask you to 'ask your friend...' to help give you the tools to raise issues.

I disagree with other people here that 'truthers' don't listen to evidence. That is categorically wrong and counter-productive. Everyone goes through stages in their life when they believe certain things that turn out to be poorly informed. Although it won't always work, making your friend aware of counter-arguments against his claims is very important. Sure, sometimes they will just reject your claims out of hand, but often they are not aware that there is a counter-argument. It's always worth giving it a go.

Source: Used to believe in plenty of conspiracy theories.

So this may not help you directly to argue better, but check out this book for a good read and some great info on why it's difficult to change people's minds.

I'll second Shermer's books.

Also add in Denialism by Specter

Snake Oil Science by Bausell, is a great look at research methods.

Why We Make Mistakes by Hallinan is a good look at some of the unconscious factors that go into our thinking.


Edit: Removed Lehrer from list.

There's a book about self-help books that really helped me: SHAM: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless. It's a skeptical investigation of the Self-Help and Actualization Movement (or SHAM) that will help you identify which books not to waste your money on.

That said, if you are looking for a cognitive behavioral therapy book, Feeling Good seems to be legitimate. I haven't read the latest edition, but early editions were free of woo and it describes practices that represent the current thinking on cognitive-behavioral therapy among medical professionals. I tend to look down on self-help books with scorn, but this one appealed to my sense of logic and reasoning.

I would highly recommend his recent book Bad Science.

His chapter on the Placebo Effect is interesting and has a slant that I had not considered. Essentially there is no Placebo Effect specifically. That is, the Placebo Effect is not that a placebo can cause the same physical effects as a specific medication. It is that a particular, let say ailment, can improve without a person being subjected to the medication which is specifically designed to improve or cure the condition.

Illness has a cycle in people, improving or declining naturally and how you analyze the use of placebo is very important.

This directly opposes the hot topic now that you can give people fake pills and they'll get better BECAUSE OF THE FAKE PILLS when that is not what the placebo effect indicates.

Read the book - it's something that everyone who eats or takes a pill should read cover to cover.

You might find Mick West's book, Escaping the Rabbit Hole, to be helpful. It's all about how and why otherwise smart and reasonable people can fall into conspiracist beliefs, and how to approach the topic with them. It also goes into some of the details of the arguments behind specific conspiracy theories like the 9/11 ones. And it's a surprisingly good read, IMO.

Skeptic's Guide to the Universe is a fantastic new book to start with.

https://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Universe-Really-Increasingly/dp/1538760525/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1575002564&sr=8-1

Snake Oil Science by Bausell is excellent as it relates to alternative medicine. Amazon Link

Book: "Why People Believe Weird Things"

http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0716733870

Another: "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds"

http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/1453690298/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299173709&sr=1-1

Happy reading!

Perhaps the book "Paranormality" would be a good book for you to read.

http://www.amazon.com/Paranormality-Why-What-Isnt-There/dp/0230752985

Messrs Ernst and Singh are a good bet:

Trick or Treatment

I can't remember if these were both in his book, but you should absolutely read: Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!

Amazon Buy Link for the Lazy

Quackwatch is a great source for debunking medical pseudoscience, and if you scroll to the bottom of the main page, you'll find links to other sites that might also help you understand the science to debunk pseudoscience:
http://www.quackwatch.com/


If you want to understand basic science, but don't have time to take a course, there's plenty of good content that can be found on iTunes -- especially the online courses.


But ultimately, your best resource will always be books. Specifically, you should start with physics. Milton Rothman's A Physicist's Guide to Skepticism is perhaps the best book for understanding how to debunk pseudoscience: http://www.amazon.com/Physicists-Guide-Skepticism-Faster-Than-Light-Pseudoscientific/dp/0879754400


After that, read Damned Lies and Statistics by Joel Best
http://www.amazon.com/Damned-Lies-Statistics-Untangling-Politicians/dp/0520219783/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372276538&sr=1-3&keywords=joel+best


And then Lies, Damned Lies, and Science by Sherry Seethaler
http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Damned-Science-Scientific-Controversies/dp/0132849445/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372276572&sr=1-1&keywords=sherry+seethaler


And then finish it with Bad Science by Ben Goldacre
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Science-Quacks-Pharma-Flacks/dp/0865479186/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372276598&sr=1-1&keywords=bad+science+by+ben+goldacre