These resources are by no means complete. I have focused on critical thinking as applied to medicine rather than literary critical thinking.

Resources for critical thinking

This one is specifically for clinicians: A good site for an introduction to logical fallacies.

The Good Thinking Society, a site promoting scientific skepticism.

Resources for evidence-based medicine

Cognitive Errors And Diagnostic Mistakes: A Case-Based Guide to Critical Thinking In Medicine by Jonathan Howard, MD

Books I have found helpful

Do You Believe In Magic? by Paul Offit MD

Trick Or Treat by Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh

A Scientist In Wonderland by Edzard Ernst.

The Skeptic’s Guide To The Universe by Steven Novella MD Covers everything from Bigfoot to complementary and alternative medicine, but a good initial guide to skeptical thinking.

Nonsense On Stilts by Massimo Pigliucci

Nature CuresThe History of Alternative Medicine in America by James Whorton. If you are considering a career in alternative medicine, read this first. Whorton covers how and why alternative medicine arose in the USA. He manages to be frank about the failings of alternative medicine while also delving into the context in which it arose. Informative and hilarious.

Books especially about homeopathy

Both of these books are by doctors who practiced or were otherwise involved in homeopathy and went on to determine that it was no better than placebo.

Homeopathy, The Undiluted Facts by Edzard Ernst MD.

Homeopathy Reconsidered by Natalie Grams MD

Sites skeptical of alternative medicine

These sites take a fairly strong stance against any and all complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and do not pull any punches. I disagree with the authors on certain points. As well, I think that their approach can put off the very people they are trying to reach, though I have come to understand why they feel as they do about CAM therapies and practitioners. However, I have found them generally reliable and hugely helpful in evaluating natural medicine therapies and learning critical thinking skills. They are certainly representative of how many people regard naturopathic practitioners! I strongly urge you to read them before deciding to enroll in any alternative medical profession. Everything you never wanted to know about complementary and alternative medicine, but should have asked. May need to retrieve some babies thrown out with the bathwater. Snark rating: 10 out of 10. Read the Feathered Dinosaur for all things vaccine-related and then some. Snark rating: 10 out of 10. For whatever reason, I don’t recall finding this site prior to enrolling at Bastyr. However it happened, I wish now that I had read this site before enrolling in naturopathic medical school. Stephen Barrett has been at this longer than probably most on the internet, and has information on naturopathy, especially its history, that I haven’t found anywhere else. Snark rating is perhaps more 7 out of 10. Barrett tends to specialize in quiet but thorough lethality.

I have some caveats about this site.

  • First, many postings are about cases and situations prior to the early 2000s (check dates in the article or at the bottom of the page).
  • Other postings are about naturopathic practitioners trained via correspondence schools or people posing as naturopaths who had absolutely no training at all.
  • While I question whether his assessment of the profession is applicable to more recently trained NDs at the accredited schools, I unfortunately think that his assessments are applicable to at least some of the NDs who influenced the profession, then and now. I think that naturopathic education has arguably improved since the 1990s, however.
  • He is on the extremely skeptical end and you may be inclined to dismiss what he says as arising from bias, but I’d read what he has to say. “The truth shall set you free… but first it will piss you off.” While not the first site to offer an insider’s critique of naturopathic medicine – that honor probably belongs to Rob Cullen – Britt Hermes’ blog was the first to come to widespread attention. I disagree with her in some areas, and she paints a more black and white picture than I do. Still, she had the courage to step forward and publish this against significant opposition. When investigating her claims, I found that unfortunately, she tends to be right in the broad strokes of the picture she paints, though I differ from her in the details.