If I might interject an observation from Geology, a field in which I used to work many years ago.

In Geology, the Creationists are the main "skeptics", when it comes to the generally accepted theories of Plate Tectonics, and of the age and method of creation of the Earth.

If one can refrain from being annoyed by their smug attitude, i.e. "We have discovered this lacuna or inconsistency in such and such a theory, therefore science is a self-serving and fraudulent establishment and we Creationists are correct in this debate and any others we might have in this field, and also the ones who will go to Heaven", it has to be admitted that skeptics are useful. They don't have to propound anything of their own in order to be useful. A theory might have gaps or fuzzy areas. It is not good enough to leave it at that. The holes have to be filled, by better observation, or more careful thought on the subject, or junking the theory and coming up with a better one.

For example, it was only in the last five or six years that a gap in the Plate Tectonic theory was filled when metallugists and material scientists brought their minds to bear on the problem.

I have to admit that certain "establishments" do have their faults. By "establishment", I mean mainstream spokesmen or pundits on a subject, or members of bodies such as the British Medical Association, which regulates Doctors in Britain. These bodies are vitally necessary. I would definitely not want some enthusiastic amateur to represent me in court should I ever be accused of anything; I would much prefer someone who is proved by membership of the Law Society to have the intellectual and practical qualifications to do so effectively.

However, members of any "establishment" can lapse into an exclusive, know-it-all attitude. (An example here; the mother of a woman I know went to hospital after suffering chest pains. Mother and daughter were desperately worried that it might be a heart attack. Man in white coat appears, and says, "ECG indicates a myocardial infarct". Daughter says, "Is that a heart attack ?" "It's a my-o-card-ial in-farct", says the white-coated one, as if to a five-year-old.)

And, establishments have been proved to be wrong in the past; there is a built-in inertia, or perhaps resistance to changing accepted dogma in the face of uncomfortable facts.

So, "skeptics" are useful, either in challenging the facile assumptions of an over-comfortable and smug establishment, or in demanding that the outrageous claims of the travelling snake-oil salesman be subject to the same tests as the doctrines of established medicine. I don't deny that skeptics can be the most awful self-satisfied parasites or charlatans themselves.



Incidentally, I wouldn't dream of putting Daylia in the class of snake-oil salesmen, nor would I accuse Mack/Misophist, to take the opposite point in this debate, of self-satisfaction. This has been the most politely and precisely conducted debate I have seen between established and alternative science.



However, I will terminate with an urban myth which indicates the potential hazards of accepting alternative science at face value. A Chinese man on a visit to Britain begins suffering back pains, which have occasionally plagued him. Back in Hong Kong, a visit to an acupuncturist invariably gives relief. So, he goes to a London acupuncturist which he finds in the telephone directory. The practice is obviously doing well. The acupuncturist himself is sleek and well-fed and on the wall of his office he has an impressive-looking diploma, written in Chinese. The Chinese visitor looks at this and then says, "Will you tell me please, why a man in your position should require a licence to catch fish in Kowloon harbour ?"