|
59 of 64 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Fine, professional, but could use a few improvments., February 29, 2004
First, lest any reviewer challenge my mere four stars, I like "Skeptic." I've been reading it for years, and am a member of the society. Personally, though, I prefer "Skeptical Inquirer," a periodical of the same genre.Now, onto the positive. This quarterly journal is very professionally done. It's thick, has a cover that'll cause it to last for years. And that's good to me. I stack up magazines like this and make them an important part of my library. Some of the articles tend to be a little cumbersome. However there is balance. Indeed, a buddy of mine fluctuates between skepticism and adoration of Carl Jung and Whitley Strieber. (!) So he prefers this to the aforementioned periodical; he feels less a pie-in-the-face from "Skeptic." I recall a few issues ago a discussion in "Skeptic" about the popular book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." Probably 16 pages of that book were in the magazine. Then a few scholars were allowed to respond from their different perspectives. Good. I don't have time to read the book so that balance gave me the analysis I needed if I should argue either way. In another issue there was discussion of the Yanomami and related tribal people in the Amazon forest. I shared that with a PC anthropologist who's worked down there. I couldn't help but be amused by her take on what I suspect was a far more "objective" (i.e., skeptical) view than hers in the magazine. Each issue has a number of fabulous book reviews. One I treasure was from one of the authors of "A Higher Superstion," another superb text I long ago purchased from Amazon.com. One of my favorites, James Randi, also has regular columns in here. Another skeptical acquaintance challenged editor Mike Shermer's objectives. Apparently Shermer--who's written several fine books available from Amazon.com--got his doctorate in history and found himself unemployed. He created The Skeptics Society to remedy that problem. Well, so what? You might say the same of Bill Gates who makes a lot more than Shermer. Overall, I like the society, and this periodical. One very minor comment: each issue has "Junior Skeptic" in the back. It's actually a fine, fine publication aimed at the younger among us. One issue was dedicated to the issue of those who claim we didn't really go the the moon. Another was on one of the perennial favorites of many of us when were younger: the Bermuda Triangle. I wish the magazine would produce a separate "Junior Skeptic" and market it to, say, junior high school science classes. I feel they'd make money off it--a whole new market--AND encourage the scientific processes so challenged today by anywhere from "creation science" advocates, Afro-centric "scholars," and all sorts of UFO advocates, astrologers and countless others of dubious merit. So there. Only four stars from someone who reads this--shall I way religiously? It's good. So read it, and note the analysis techniques endorsed by its editors and writers.
|
