- One of my Tsinghua American colleagues writes an op-ed: “China wants you. Job prospects are abundant.”
- Robert Anton Wilson’s skepticism about skeptics. “Those people claim to be rationalists, but they’re governed by such a heavy body of taboos. They’re so fearful, and so hostile, and so narrow, and frightened, and uptight and dogmatic. . . . None of them ever says anything skeptical about the AMA, or about anything in establishment science or any entrenched dogma.” I agree. They should be called one-way skeptics.
- Excellent Vanity Fair article about Occupy Wall Street. Better than The New Yorker‘s article covering similar stuff.
- The many side effects of statins. I am impressed by the new way of learning about drug side effects.
Thanks to Ryan Holiday and Gary Wolf.
Thanks for the link to Seneff’s excellent article. I have passed it on to everyone I know.
Hm. But the Wikipedia entry says that the quotation you carry was about “…scientific types with overly rigid belief systems…”. That doesn’t sound like the people I think of as sceptics.
Many thanks for the link to the article about statins; you do good work on this site!
The kind of people RAW refers to should not called skeptics at all.
But they call themselves skeptics. If he’s not talking about you, what should you call yourself to distinguish yourself from them?
That paper by S. Seneff has more astonishments per page than anything I have read in years. All by itself, it’s easily worth all the time I have spent keeping up with this site. I am breaking my rule against spamming my address list for this one.