"when i think of a quack i think of someone who purposely puts forth invalid information shrouded in such a way as to make it appear valid. i just don't for a minute believe Dr. Dick is that type of person"

Look at what you just said!!!!

Doesn't it ever occur to you that you might be blind to the shrouds used by a quack? And if that were the case, you would not think the quack is a quack?

A similar problem is: given that crazy people are sure they are not crazy, if you ever go crazy yourself how would you know about it?

The good news is that the problem about one's own sanity is an unsolvable problem only for insane people. Why? The answer is simple: sane people are never absolutely sure they are not insane! That's why they came up with the problem above. Madmen cannot even understand what the problem is to start with. So if you think you might be going mad, relax, more likely than not you're quite sane. If you start thinking it's impossible for you to have lost your mind, then it's too late.

There are only two kinds of people who are sure they are not quacks: the quacks themselves, and the ones who are sure the quacks are not quacks.

So, watch out!

Then again, it might be too late.

• Good point. But don't you mean "quarks?" - carefuluniverse - September 25, 2003 - 20:57 UTC
• the issue of quackery... - sagefr0g - September 26, 2003 - 02:36 UTC
  • You are the one making false assumptions... - bruce - September 26, 2003 - 08:22 UTC
    • then you agree? - sagefr0g - September 26, 2003 - 09:19 UTC
      • This whole Stafford misconception of proof - harvey1 - September 26, 2003 - 14:19 UTC
        • Tanaka lunacy - aurino_ - September 26, 2003 - 14:44 UTC
      • Tim... - bruce - September 27, 2003 - 01:11 UTC
        • i'd have to take exception - sagefr0g - September 30, 2003 - 00:38 UTC