Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
32 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Scientific Study of the Paranormal, November 5, 2002
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.
|
|
|
16 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Bunkie debunk, debunk, debunk..., May 9, 2004
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
|
|
|
45 of 54 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
The best of a weak field, July 17, 2003
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.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
