Quackwatch and Snopes

Quackwatch?  What the heck is that, a bird-watching group that focuses on Mallards?  No, it is a web site that is devoted to exposing those who are engaged in health fraud.  Dr. Stephen Barrett, a psychiatrist, takes skepticism to a higher level than most of us practice.  For that, he's encountered some critics and controversy.  Does that make his conclusions wrong?  A good debate to be sure.  He exposes some very popular methods of healing as scams or ineffective.  Some "cherished beliefs are challenged."  Personally, I like anything that takes us out of our cognitive comfort zone.  

As teachers of psychology and science, we've undoubtedly encountered students who share with us experiences that family members have had with healing magnets, crystals, homeopathy, special vitamins, colon cleansing, etc.  When I hear of these, I will go to Quackwatch.org to see what they and the research has to say.

I will also do this with Snopes.com when I hear things that sound like Urban Legends.  For those unfamiliar, urban legends are stories that are told and retold as fact even though there is often no basis for the story--they are modern myths.  From Wikipedia, "Like all folklore, contemporary legends are not necessarily false, but they are often distorted, exaggerated, or sensationalized over time."  While they make for great entertainment and even as cautionary tales, they are not true and often reflect fears, biases and prejudices of the tellers.  Anyone who recalls the "Birther Conspiracy" or the lady with the cat caught in the rain who microwaved it to dry it out faster will recognize the power of these stories.  Often, it has happened to a FOAF (friend of a friend)--but it's REAL!!!!!  according to the teller. 

Both sites deal with our individual cognition as well as social cognition on top of research methods.  They would fit nicely within any of those units.