Diabetics R4 Logic

   It'a great thing to be a skeptic. A skeptic holds no belief that they are not prepared to defend in a logical argument. We tend to abandon beliefs that prove to be flawed and although we might react like a startled walrus if our own opinions re proved wrong we will ultimately be grateful for the truth. It's a wonderful thing to be able to gather together with like-minded people and although a church wouldn't really be suitable, a church would also serve fewer beers so I think Cardiff skeptics in the pub has it about right.
   But I've asked myself, "self, I wonder what would be the best way to create a skeptic."
   "Oh," I would reply, "Butt, thass norra question, is it, mun? Thassa statement," (my answering self obviously has a broader valleys twang than my asking self), "an' anyway, iss obvious, innit?"
   Clearly the best way to create a skeptic is to train someone to use critical thinking as though their life depended on it. Perhaps in some elaborate "Saw" movie-type-shenanegans we could force somebody to analyse every aspect of their life and kill them if they fail.
   Analyse what you do, what you eat and drink, what medication you take, what exercise you participate in, what rest you get and all the sensory input you receive in case it is deceiving you. And if you get it wrong you die.
   That would do it.
   But of course there already is something out there doing that for us - type one diabetes. We skeptics don't need to torture anybody (Hooray/Gutted - delete as applicable). Yes, I'm banging on about diabetes again. That's a hundred percent hit rate so far but bear with me. I have a theory that type one diabetes necessarily leads to intelligent analysis and I've invented a brilliant new compound word for it.
  The Dialysis theory (brilliantly combining the two essential elements of the theory and eerily foreshadowing the inevitable organ failure that a lifetime on insulin will eventually deliver).
   Having proposed this theory it makes me realise two things.One; I can no longer be quite so chuffed with myself that I saw through the fallacies of religion, pseudo-science and poor journalism unaided, and two; skeptics should really be targeting diabetic clinics for potential members.
   Seriously.
   Type two diabetics wouldn't be so predisposed to analytical thinking and (as they are more likely to be elderly and clinging to comforting beliefs as their condition slides toward death) shouldn't really be targeted for debate. Do you think a munter would really appreciate your advice that an interesting hat might draw attention away from their face?
   ...
   In case you're unsure, the answer is no. No, they wouldn't. Stop being a bugger, you know they wouldn't.
   But type one diabetics? Surely there lies a massive untapped skeptical audience. Next time I'm at my diabetic clinic and I see a young(ish) person I might strike up a conversation with them. We already have one thing in common - I'm writing checks with my stomach my pancreas can't cash, same as them. They must have analytical skill to have survived to this stage and if not, well ... I guess they won't be there to remind me of my mistake next year.
   For all the (both the...? The one...?) "not-skeptic-yet-if-ever"s that read this: if Astrology winds you up; if Derek Acorah seems like a camp but polite thief of money from the deluded and joy from the informed; if the Pape (hey, if it's "Papal" then he's the bloody "Pape". Just because "Popal" sounds stupid is no reason to mess with grammar) seems like the world's best advert for contraception then please check out some skeptical web-sites, blogs or podcasts. Maybe I'll post some links.
   We're not a weird group of freaks, losers, nutters and... hold on.If you can get to the Promised Land in Cardiff on the third Monday of every month and you are even vaguely interested in science, logic, reason. evidence and such then come and hang out with the nicest weird group of freaks, losers, nutters...