Skeptical Inquirer :: Education by Design Store

Customer Reviews

Why bother?

2005-04-27
A very, very boring magazine. You read one and you read them all. Just remember this, "it can't be, therefore it isn't."

That pretty much sums up the whole boring philosophy of this unglamorous, pompous, lacking all excitement, our poop doesn't stink, organization. Ugh.

The best "skeptic" magazine

2004-08-06
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!

Bunkie debunk, debunk, debunk...

2004-05-10
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

A Decent Magazine 2004-02-10
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.

At least it has the counter-evidence... 2004-01-14
but this doesn't mean that it makes much sense. The only reason I gave this magazine two stars is because it presents the skeptical side of things. This is to balance the believers side. A while back the air force came out with an "explanation" for the Roswell incident. They claimed that crash test dummies were being experimented with and this explains the aliens witnesses saw. Do crash test dummies walk around like the aliens winesses saw? No. Theres not enough evidence one way or another to say what happened at Roswell, if anything. Witnesses could have lied for any number of reasons. The military could have been experimenting with top secret projects and pressured witnesses to keep their mouth shut. But this magazine bought the airforce explanation,which makes zero sense. When the evidence is murky and can go either way, the smart thing to say is "I don't know." This is way better than skeptics believing that crash test dummies explained it all, which is pretty foolish. Descartes wrote once in his discourse on method that one should Doubt EVERYTHING. This is what a true skeptic does. The impression I got from this magazine is not one of true skepticism, but a club of like minded people who got together to express their beliefs. All fine and well. All skeptics are not represented by this magazine. It could also be that what this magazine calls crackpots, psuedo scientists, and the rest are also skeptics, who doubt orthodox beliefs and who doubt the proofs that are brought forward by the orthodoxy. I am all for exposing fraud and the profit, fame, etc. motives behind it. But I believe you should think for yourself to find truth and not be swayed by what a believer or skeptic says. A recent editorial in this magazine called the disagreements between the orthodox and the unorthodox a "war." This gives me an insight into what some of the people behind this magazine really believe. A war implies a victory to impose your will on others. In this case it is to impose these skeptics beliefs on everyone else. The old religious inquisitions are dead, but it looks like the new scientific inquisitions are well on their way.

Science! What a concept!! 2008-03-10
Dispelling ghosts and ghost hunters, demons and exorcists, miracles and evangelicals, bigfoot and related beasties and their hunters, psychics, mediums, and lots more of things that go bump on network TV and the mainstream press, SI is a breath of fresh air for those tired of the unending, uncritical coverage of the "paranormal." Pseudo-scientists and charlatans beware!

Great Magazine - Lousy Price 2007-10-07
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.

Useful but rarely interesting 2007-08-22
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.

Good on analysis, lousy on tolerance 2005-12-10
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.

New Agers & Conspiracy Theorists, This One's for You! 2005-05-11
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!).

- Kelly Garbato

Lifelong skeptic & unapologetic atheist