Customer Reviews

Skeptical Inquirer

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This magazine is put out by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP for short). Their mission statement is "Encourage the critical investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims from a responsible, scientific point of view and disseminates factual information about the results of such inquiries to the scientific community and the public" and the Skeptical Inquirer magazine is one of the main ways the information is disseminated.

The articles in any typical issue cover a wide range of subjects from ESP and alien abductions to the claims of efficacy of various alternative medicine practices. The point being with all of these topics, to apply the scientific method to either prove or disprove a claim. I've always found the articles to be unbiased. If a test is inconclusive the results are reported as readily as a positive result. In addition, since the magazine is intended for the public and not specifically scientists, the writing is always very clear and easy to read.

Nothing like starting with a trite title. I've been subscribing to this fine journal longer than I have "Skeptic" which I also recommend. Indeed, I recently argued with a colleague, one who's convinced that she's had an out-of-body experience (OBE), who thinks this journal is the closest thing to heresy she's ever encountered. (Suffice it to say, the argument didn't go on for long. I climbed aboard my UFO and went off to Xanadu and we remain friends.)

I should mention too another friend who jumps from one New Age fad to another. He prefers "Skeptic" to this as he feels the editors of that magazine are less prone to insult the things in which he chooses to believe. So if your hypersensitive, this might not be for you. I'm not that sensitive, just know who NOT to bother arguing with.

I look forward to every issue of Skeptical Inquirer. Some of the articles are a little terse, but that's okay. I mean, Carl Sagan was right: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet there's people who'll buy the latest health fads, the latest UFO claim--the list grows by the day.

To be perfectly honest, I thought the magazine was a little better when it was quarterly. (I think it's every other month now.) But I still read it cover to cover. It's a little less "academic" than "Skeptic" but that doesn't mean less researched. There just tends to be a little more wit than that other journal. When Martin Gardner had a regular column, I turned to that before the other articles. But Martin, like the rest of us, isn't getting any younger. I'll still have to read his library of books much of which graces my bookshelves.

Folks, there's a lot to learn. The "mainstream" media tend to NOT discourage items that lead to the Amityville Horror and countless other scams. (I just remember that one, hence my referring to it specifically.) Indeed, this is one of the few magazines that I not only read but save in one of the binders I also got from them (along with the legged Darwin fish for my car and the slogan, "I doubt it" which flashes on my cyber-hat. Sorry. Someone gave that to me for my birthday and that just seemed an appropriate slogan to flash to people who buy the stuff so seldom challenged by people who should know better!)

If you are inclined to skepticism, you're healthier than the average American these days. I recommend this journal. The subject matter is broad, the articles are fun, and

While it lacks the gloss and pizazz of the one other major magazine in the field (Skeptic), the Skeptical Inquirer is the far better publication of the two. It's much less of a one-man show, being guided by an organization (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal, or CSIOP) rather than a semi-charismatic leader. That's not to say it doesn't have its faults.

Like Skeptic, Skeptical Inquirer is heavy on the polemical approach and light on the tolerance. There tends to be a very heavy-handy and condescending attitude towards any religious belief, with a few odd and contradictory exceptions. For example, Martin Garder is a board member and a major inspiration of CSIOP; indeed, his books on "Fads and Fallacies" are among the most often-cited works on pseudoscience. Gardener himself is a practicing Christian, as he discusses in his book "What I Believe", yet he's all too quick to comdemn religious beliefs not concordant with his own. The truely skeptical reader might wonder why Garder's beliefs get a pass, but other religions are deemed cults. Why are only some revelation acceptible?

Overall, though, The Skeptical Inquirer does tend to have a little more of a scientific slant than does The Skeptic, and one will find more scientists writing in The Skeptical Inquirer. For instance, the current issue (July/August 2003) has an article on Memory Recover authored by (among others) Elizabeth Loftus, and a reply by Stephen PInker to an earlier article.

Given the choice between the two magazines mentioned, The Skeptical Inquirer gets my nod as the preferred publication. But it should still be read with an attitude at least as skeptical as the magazine itself.

This magazine contains detailed articles debunking modern mythology; ranging from crop circles to spontaneous combustion to psychics and beyond. Their well educated and preceptive journalists do significant scientific and historical research to provide detailed analyses of many proported paranormal occurances and explain the creation of such hoaxes. Their analytical results might be a bit offensive to people who truly want to believe in the paranormal, but most of their articles are carefully and tactfully written, and each experiment is done fairly, with an open mind. The articles contain comprehensive information that is useful to send to family and friends who are certain that (any such supernatural occurance) does exist. Skeptical Inquirer also contains reviews on related literary works and lectures. This is a must have publication for a well educated, rational person today. I have enjoyed every issue I have recieved.

I enjoy science in its many forms and enjoy the Skeptical Inquirer for its thorough and logical explanation of "weird" events. While it takes the "fun" out of things like ghosts and UFOs, having the phenomena explained rationally is a treat in itself. Unfortunately I find the journal a little difficult to read at times. The intolerance of the beliefs of others gets a little difficult to take when it's so much in your face. Often the authors are condescending, sometimes outright insulting, with resepct to non-scientific points of view. There are times when they literally attack the individuals themselves instead of the ideas they propose. No matter how logical the discussion, it seems inappropriate for a journal whose purpose is the scientific explanation of events and phenomena to take such an emotional posture. Surely the attitude will do more harm than good, since those who sense that they are personally under attack will rise to their own defense and become even more entrenched in their beliefs. Instead of learning a new way of analyzing data and becoming less credulous, they will become even more resistant to a logical approach. Since some of the journal's own readership may be among these, the authors' risk losing the opportunity to teach and end up preaching to the choir of the convinced. What's the point? It seems to me that an entirely non-judgemental, just-the-facts approach would be in the best interests of the periodical and its readership.

The act of skeptical inquiry in and of itself primarily results in what is often called "debunking." As a citizen living in country of people hoodwinked into beleiveing that witches, unicorns,and bigfoot all exist relative to their fairy tale roots, this magazine serves as a refreshing antidote. Most often you will find that those who are displeased with the magazine are those who want to read "serious inquiry" into X Files type events that are invariably a hoax. If someone wants to believe in the Loch Ness Monster or bleeding statues; that is their perogative. But they shouldn't be surprised when skeptical inquiry results in a less than favorable verdict for their pet-fantasies. For those that are interested in reading the best magazine of skeptical/rational inquiry outside of a straight science magazine; enjoy this one.

Skeptical Inquirer has got to be, hands down, my absolute favorite periodical (Free Inquiry comes in a close second). Produced by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), the magazine aims to separate "fact from myth in the flood of occultism and pseudoscience on the scene today." Through scientific inquiry, scholarly research, and in-depth analysis, it succeeds (and with flair!).

A typical issue reads like a season of the X-Files (well, had Scully been the more enlightened member of the duo). A sampling of articles from some recent issues includes "Facts and Fiction in the Kennedy Assassination"; "Is Science Making Us More Ignorant?"; "Investigative Files: Rorschach Icons"; "The Campeche, Mexico 'Infrared UFO' Video"; "Pranks, Frauds, and Hoaxes from Around the World"; and "Belgium Skeptics Commit Mass Suicide." The contributors cover every "supernatural" topic imaginable, from alchemy to zombies, angels to the Zodiac, and everything in between. They also discuss "normal" topics (e.g., the energy crisis) by way of pseudoscience.

Although the writing is scholarly, it never becomes dry or boring - how could it, what with such unusual topical choices? The authors are all experts in their fields; their analyses are academic yet well within the grasp of laypersons. When compared to the watered-down rubbish that passes for popular science nowadays, Skeptical Inquirer is an obvious choice for the discriminating reader - she who would rather exercise her brain than put it on autopilot while perusing "People"! The writing is superior, the issues entertaining, the documentation fair and clearly laid out - if you only subscribe to one magazine, let it be Skeptical Inquirer!

Also, be sure to check out CSICOP's web site. They've got tons of special features, such as "Creation Watch" and "Superstition Bash." Sign up for their mailing list and enter to win their decal/Picture of the Month contest; first prize will bag you a nifty new book (by the way, I'm Ms. December 2003, The Grinch!).

This is the only readily available US magazine that presents factual analyses of a good variety of the various crazy claims that the US media are filled with. There are problems, however. First, the coverage is generally far more than a day late and a dollar short... it is very rare that I find anything about claims less than a few years old. Second, if you subscribe, based on my experience, you may not get many of the issues you pay for--- the magazine comes loose and unwrapped with your name and address faintly printed by some ancient dot-printer on the center bottom of the rear page. It is not unusual for me to fail to receive 2 of the 6 yearly issues. Third, the magazine, despite the great public interest in its subject matter, tends to be very, very, very dull. I find the lists of newly published books in the back of each issue to be far more valuable than the editorial contents of the magazine itself.

This magazine is by far the best of the bunch. It's published by CSICOP [Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal]. Unlike "Skeptic Magazine", the Skeptical Inquirer does divide religious criticism for another magazine called "Free Inquiry". Therefore, this magazine deals solely in pseudoscience.

At first, you might feel uncomfortable in their dealing with issues people want to believe in (e.g. ghost and UFO's), but with a little time, you will start thinking clearer and more rationally. For example, have you ever really wondered why some people are not cured when they go to the Chiropractor? I know my grandmother wound up have more back problems after visiting one for a few weeks, and eventually had to have surgery on her back! This magazine does a good job in explaining why its junk science; and the people who explain it are usually experts in the topics field (e.g. Quakwatch - aka - Stephen Barrett, M.D.). Great material!

With so many skeptics in the room, I'm surprised no one's debunked the ridiculously high 35$ price tag. You can get SI from their own website for $20.