Skepticism may be considered the systematic rejection of Argument from Authority. But there are a lot of people who confuse it with rejection of the wrong, fake, bad Authorities and unquestioning acceptance of, trust in, and obedience to the right Authorities.

It is a classic morality tale: humble person shows trust in the Good Wizard and is rewarded. Trust the Good Wizards, and reject the Bad, and you too may be rewarded.

I am sure the basic medical story is genuine. But putting it together in this form, with this conclusion/moral… somebody’s selling something. And it isn’t skepticism.

I myself am skeptical about the whole concept of “skepticism”. I have no idea what it is, what is its methodology? I do know something else older with established methodologies, it’s called “science”. People should study books like by Thomas Kuhn on the scientific method.

plognark: “Sometimes I think the best things skeptics can do is back away from internet forums for a little while. I’ve noticed some people get militant enough about anecdotes and fallacies and whatnot that they can miss the forest for the trees.”

this is why the scientific method is tried and true. At scientific meetings over the decades and centuries, scientists debate out which hypotheses can best explain the evidence, and as the evidence grows, the hypotheses can be thrown out or modified to accommodate new data domains. Science is never “proven” in the sense that it is always tentative and can be modified, and the history of science illustrates this.

My wife is currently pregnant. We switched from a doctor to a midwife practice at around 30 weeks because I got a new job at a hospital with awesome benefits. Plus the doctors that my wife had been with before were very much “this is how you do things” and we found out are known for a large number of C-sections. Our first visit to the midwife, she asked “Why aren’t you taking iron supplements? Your iron has been low since your first visit to the doctor.” This is after my wife specifically asked the doctor about iron supplements.

Now, this midwife practice has an OB on staff, but most care is done by midwives. This is honestly the only type of midwife practice I have ever seen. If there exists a midwife practice that does not have an OB behind them, I would be scared. What the person in the letter is talking about sounds more like a doula than a midwife. A doula can assist in the birthing process but should never be trusted on her/his own. If you choose a midwife, choose one who is a registered nurse and has delivered babies before.

What, someone who is emotional and a decent enough writer to express himself must be lying? Besides, as others have pointed out, the anecdote is not being used to say “you should go to a doctor”; the message is that the skeptical movement helped a couple make decisions based on evidence and risk — and that saved lives.

This is true regardless of whether the decisions made where the only correct ones.

And if you think the story is unbelievable because it has “too much sugary lather” — I just don’t know what to tell you. You clearly have never been around a couple who just got through almost losing the life of their unborn child, not to mention the mother. Feelings tend to run rather high in such circumstances, has been my experience.

Don’t try so hard to be skeptical that you miss the point. This letter wasn’t intended to be “evidence that medicine works”, we have plenty of that. It was intended as an anecdote to encourage someone they find inspirational. As long as the recipient accepts the story as it was intended, I don’t see any value in trying to “debunk” it. Some people just talk like that when they’re, you know, grateful that their entire family didn’t die.

Even if as (#7.) Mike correctly points out it is anecdotal evidence.

I also agree with the statement by (#6.) The Arquette Sisters & I expect the BA himself would agree with that as well.

@10. JGlanton Says:

Absolutely agree about healthy skepticism. And nowhere is it more important to practice that than when looking at simulations that predict catastrophic global warming due to carbon dioxide.

There’s a lot more supporting evidence and reason to think Anthropogenic Global Warming is real than just computer simulations. I hope you know that. There is considerable observational evidence and logical reasoning showing AGW is indeed occurring.

(Whether & just how “Catastrophic” it will be is somewhat more of an open question I think but still.)

I strongly advise you to take a look at this videoclip (try not to be too put off by the confrontational title) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas&feature=PlayList&p=029130BFDC78FA33&playnext_from=PL&index=6

I challenge the climate skeptics here to watch through all the very watchable and informative videoclips on this playlist :

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=029130BFDC78FA33

and still say they don’t accept the scientific – esp. the 98% of the expert climatologist scientists – consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

During both deliveries they knew their limits and called in the OB when I needed an emergency C-section.

So, like anything, it depends on the person.

This is FANTASTIC news, if you have been monitoring the Gulf oil spill.

We will continue flights along the beaches once a month, but the majority of the oil has already been captured. You would never know that from watching TV, but thousands of people have worked very hard.

Was this on topic? Yup!

The other Mike

Some quotes from the story:

“Because my wife’s doctor is awesome…”

“As a result of the doctor’s thoroughness, the quick and competent actions of the medical team, and amazing technology that resulted from decades of scientific research in medicine,…”

“And not 10 years ago, before we’d learned to strengthen our critical thinking skills thanks to the skeptical community, ….”

Too much sugary lather.