Talk:Skeptical Inquirer

Reason (magazine)
I saw something strange in the article. There is the usual header at the end of it called "See also" where it lists similar topics with links. One of them is Reason magazine, which is not a magazine dedicated to critical thought or the advancement of science but a political magazine with an ideological agenda. I think the entry should be removed since I fail to see it as relevant and also because it smells like someone using the article to subtly propagate their political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.230.7 (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Executive Council
On October 9, 2010 CSI met to discuss future plans and to expand the Executive Council. The results were published in Vol. 35 No. 1, I feel this information is relevant to the article and I propose to add this section to the site. SGerbic (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Gullible skeptics
Please tell me which Skeptical Inquirer issue has dealt with Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) since I don't remember anyone. In fact, I have discussed ADHD with the Skeptical Inquirer editor quite a few times thru email and he does not seem to be interested in the subject (though he did publish my short article about The Bélmez Faces). —Cesar Tort 05:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * May/June 2006 issue, see the photo of the cover in the main article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am truly shocked that Kendrick Frazier published the article you called my attention to: a pro-psychiatry piece for the immoral drugging of healthy American children with Ritalin. Please take a look at my own web page. 

Back in 1992 Prometheus Books rejected John Modrow’s How to become a schizophrenic even though Peter Breggin wrote a warm endorsement for the manuscript. Modrow had no choice but to self-publish it with his earnings as a blue collar hard worker at Seattle bay. I am afraid that I have no choice but to quote a paragraph of a 1998 letter he sent me:


 * Now in regard to the people at CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer, I pretty much dismiss them as a bunch of intellectual cowards who spend their time beating up fringe beliefs and marginal crackpots. Perhaps I’m a bit too harsh.  After all, there is nothing wrong with what they are doing.  In fact, I approve of what they are doing —except that they never go after the really big fish: an establishment pseudoscience like psychiatry.  In fact, I recall reading one article in the Skeptical Inquirer in which Thomas Szasz and other critics of psychiatry were put in the same category as “creation scientists” and other purveyors of superstition and anti-science.

My bold type above. —Cesar Tort 04:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * While I have my own (strong) opinions of Szasz, I won't post them here. I will, however, say that Szasz absolutely is not, and does not claim to be, a scientist, and that his consideration of psychology as a pseudoscience is from a VERY different perspective that the Skeptical Inquirer's consideration of, for example, ESP as a pseudoscience.  It is not just that psychiatry is well-established as compared to most fringe theories the Inquirer attacks, but that its beliefs and practices are largely in-line with most current scientific principles and utilizes the scientific method in a highly rigorous way.  Objections to "biopsychiatry" are typically philosophical, not scientific.  Eebster the Great (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. Objections to biopsychiatry are scientific. Just take a good look at the first article of the book Pseudoscience in Biological Psychiatry. 88.1.46.138 (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are not for debating the topic at hand, they are for discussing improvements to the page. In addition, the last contribution to this section was several months ago.  If you think there is a problem with the current page, please start a new section at the bottom of the page.
 * To everyone else watching, yeah, my bad for revert-revert-reverting; though the new comment is a WP:SOAP problem, the remainder of the section has some merit regards the actual page and shouldn't be removed. I've also placed a off-topic warning.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

enquirer?
an enquirer inquires. the editors of the afore mentioned periodical should consult a dictionary. i appreciate this has nothing ot do with the article, i just dislike bad english. Jonomacdrones 01:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The New Oxford American Dictionary says that inquirer is correct. Bubba73 (talk), 03:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem
When I typed Zetetic scholar into Wikipedia, it bounced to the Skeptical Enquirer page. It should not, because the SE was originally The Zetetic, and was renamed SE. Truzzi founded the Zetetic Scholar after leaving CSICOP.

Martinphi 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I fixed it. That was due to a misunderstanding by THB.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Journal?
'but it is not a formal scientific journal.' Can anyone explain what this means, and if it is a clear distinction. Liam195.7.54.2 10:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a magazine, not a journal that specializes in publishing scientific research, like JAMA, NEJM, Lancet, etc.. You won't find its articles listed at PubMed. -- Fyslee 10:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Standard appendices and descriptions & WP:GTL
I noticed that this article and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry don't follow WP:GTL guidelines regarding some section namings. It seems to me that the section presently named References should, to follow GTL guidelines, be named Further reading and that the section now named Notes should be named References. Is there any opposition to changing these names per GTL? -- Boracay Bill 07:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The two item under "references" are indeed references (Harvard referencing), they are cited in the text. So they aren't "Further reading".  Maybe "notes" should be renamed "footnotes", but I need to read the GTL.  Bubba73 (talk), 13:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

GTL says:


 * Notes
 * References (or combined with "Notes" into Notes and references)
 * Further reading (or Bibliography)

...

"It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the Notes and References sections should be next to each other. For example, you may put "Further reading" above "Notes and references" or vice versa. "Notes" is only for footnotes (explanations or comments on any part of the main text). "References" is only for referenced materials (books, websites etc. cited in the main text). Otherwise "Notes and references" should be combined. "

So according to that, it is OK as it is, unless the two are combined into "notes and references". Bubba73 (talk), 13:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I partially agree. The items in References are definitely references, but the "notes" are references too, and not "explanations or comments". Bubba73 (talk), 13:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The "notes" are all external links, though. Bubba73 (talk), 13:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What was done on these two pages is a bit different from the pages I'm used to seeing. Most of the pages I've looked at place a  tag in a section named References, and populate that section with inline instances, where REF_ITEM is often formatted by one of the citation templates from WP:CITET. Individual REF_ITEMs in the text hook to their References section appearances via numbered links and backlinks supplied by the mechanism behind the, and  tags (the Cite.php extension to MediaWiki). The &  template family can also be used to supply connective links and backlinks, but don't do auto-numbering of links.

WP:GTL describes the References section as containing "... [items] that you used in constructing the article and have referenced (cited) in the article. An example is then given using &lt;Ref&gt;, which puts the example item into a &lt;References/&gt; collection under an example section named (confusingly, to me) Notes instead of References.

Per WP:BB, I went ahead and made the changes. I eliminated the Notes section and combined its contents with the References section. I also improved & combined cites and fixed the Harvard-references backlinks. If this looks OK, I'll try to do the same to the other article sometime soon. -- Boracay Bill 05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What appears to have been done on the two pages being discussed here is that the items which would go in the References section have been broken up into (1) some harvard-referenced books and (2) other stuff -- mostly web pages but some books as well on the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry page --, with the harvard-referenced books being put in a bulleted list in a section titled References and the other stuff in a list auto-numbered with &lt;Ref&gt; etc. in a section named Notes. That's what threw me -- I'm not used to seeing that done.

WP:GTL does say "it is more important to have clarity and consistency in an article than to adhere to any particular system." I have plenty of other things on my plate at present, so I think I'll drop the matter here. -- Boracay Bill 21:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are exactly right in your pbervation. Books that are referenced are Harvard-referenced in the text and the references section.  Most of the footnotes are external links, but some in the other article are not.  Somewhere else I've read something to the effect "better any kind of reference than no reference". What do you suggest about the conflicting styles?  I strongly prefer Harvard referencing, but I'm not up to changing the notes and links.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BB, I went ahead and made the changes. I eliminated the Notes section and combined its contents with the References section. I also improved & combined cites and fixed the Harvard-references backlinks. If this looks OK, I'll try to do the same to the other article sometime soon. -- Boracay Bill 05:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, this former Feature Article Paul Morphy uses notes (footnotes), references, and further reading. But in that case, notes are true footnotes. Bubba73 (talk), 03:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

not peer-reviwed, and not a journal
I made this change because that harvard source is directly contradicted by the official website, so it must be wrong. Their official website: Maybe the Harvard source was mis-interpreted --Enric Naval (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) states that it's a magazine and says nothing about being a journal. Their subtitle is "The Magazine for Science and Reason"
 * 2) does not claim anywhere to be peer-reviewed
 * 3) doesn't explain any method to recruit reviewers and apply for being a reviewer.

Position on major issues
Nightscream: What do you mean when you say "Skepticism is an approach or methodology, not an approach"?

Are you arguing that SI would print an original article (not a rebuttal) by Peter Duesberg on the uses of skepticism in viewing HIV as a cause of Aids?

The global warming paper is specifically stated right on the cover to be a "position paper", and it's published by the CFI, an affiliate of SI. Readers can certainly take it to be SI's formal position on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye.earth (talk • contribs) 05:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the Edit Summary. I meant to say, "Skepticism is an approach, or methodology, not a position." As for the paper, yeah, you're right. I wasn't sure whose "position" it was, but I looked over that issue, and yes, you're right. Since SI is the magazine of CFI, I agree it's reasonable to call it a position of the magazine. However, I would caution that this assertion is somewhat more subjective with respect to the other topics. Some skeptical publications like SI do print rebuttals or other material by people opposed to its material. (I seem to recall Deepak Chopra and Michael Shermer having a point-counterpoint dual essay in Skeptic.) But whether they would publish such a thing or not, is not the issue. When you start assuming that a skeptical or critical look at a subject is the same as a position, you're treading into WP:SYNTH. I suggest restoring the bit about the global warming position paper, but not others unless they're explicitly stated to be position pieces like the global warming one. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the emphasis towards the individual authors (except for the position paper), and made the section head more specific. I think it's an improvement, and accomplishes what I had in mind: to bring attention to the magazine's treatment of two major contemporary controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye.earth (talk • contribs) 17:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed this section as it doesn't seem to fit well with the overall article - it gives too much weight to two particular issues. Feedback is welcome here.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"particular issues" -- do you mean the two issues of the magazine that contain the two articles, or the two issues of global warming & HIV/Aids? If the latter, global warming and Aids loom very large in contemporary life and surely devoting a short section to them isn't excessive. A separate article would be excessive, but unmentioned at all they do rather become elephants in the room. Still, I changed the section head to "Major articles", so it can be expanded as necessary in the future. As for undue weight, it would definitely apply to a new section specifically about the debunking of yet another generic monster/ghost. Also, undue weight refers to the problem of minority points to view. No such problem here -- there is no question the articles were published, a fact which also neutralizes the matter of reliable sources.

As for what Aids dissidents think, I've replaced my words with those of author Nicoli Nattrass. A bit shorter, but the subtext is still there for the perceptive reader. And that's what matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye.earth (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Nightscream: It would be POV if I were to insist that the section was complete, or if I stipulated a restricted list of topics. But I'm not doing that. People can add to it. A definitive evolution article would be a candidate.

There can be no serious question that HIV and global warming are major topics, the latter by definition, being the subject of an official SI position paper. It's a product of their POV, not mine. But Nattrass' piece is arguably a position paper de facto because it appears to be the only comprehensive Aids statement SI has published, and as the lead cover-article to boot. It took the author's POV to write the article and the magazine editor's POV to publish it. It's merely my POV to assert the obvious -- that Aids is a major topic. Eye.earth (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies for my poor word choice. I have added those two subjects to the list within the Content section, which is where they belong. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Circulation claim
The article as I post this claims the circulation is "50,000" citing a source from 13 years ago (repeat: 13 years ago, 2002), which, by the way, features a link in the reference that no longer goes to the page cited. The "50,000" number is being repeated across the Internet and even comes up in a special top result on Google in a search for: skeptical inquirer circulation. However, in the year-end current issue, Nov-Dec 2015, Vol 39 No 6, pg 12, where the legally required "Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation" information block appears, it says for the past 12 month period the average press run was 34,295 and the paid print and electronic circulation: 23,570. Total distribution, including free: 24,672. The outdated claim of 50,000 needs to be fixed. I'm not a regular editor here and I know how protective you skeptics are, so I'll let someone else attend to this. 5Q5 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. It's been over two months and no regular editor here attended to it, so I revised the alleged 2002 circulation number of 50,000 to the current verifible number of 24,672 using the public domain circulation statement that appears on page 12 in the Nov-Dec 2015 issue of the magazine. 5Q5 (talk)

Rewrite
This page seems horribly outdated. I'm going to give it a go at a rewrite. Give me a week or so and see what I come up with.Sgerbic (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did it in only a couple days. YEAH! I am not 100% sure that the magazine covers are going to be okay, I uploaded them under the WP:NFCC licencing as they are low rez, I will think of something else if they are not right. I was able to get a copy of the Scientific American article from 1982 that really pulled the rewrite together. There also exists a Reader's Digest and a Psychology Today article that I read the first page of, I didn't see anything worthwhile on those pages, but possibly somewhere in the rest of the article. If someone finds them please review and see what you think.The Reader's Digest is July 1978, written by Frazier. I don't think there was anything else I was trying to find, but you're welcome to it. Enjoy!Sgerbic (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Promotional link?
Near the end of the article there are two references to the "CSI Online Store". Is this consistent with WP:SPAM? I'm a little unclear on what is and is not allowed.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  05:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Uncited material in need of citations
I am moving the following material here until it can be properly supported with reliable, SECONDARY citations, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS], WP:NOTADVERT, WP:NOR, et al. I don't know who's responsible for this, but there is no way in hell that Wikipedia permits an article on magazine with this much information supported by a total of sixty-one primary citations of the magazine itself, or its parent body, out of a total seventy-one citations, not to mention an entire final section that's completely unreferenced. This diff shows where the material was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Mission statement and goals
The formal mission statement approved in 2006 states: "The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry promotes science and scientific inquiry, critical thinking, science education, and the use of reason in examining important issues. It encourages the critical investigation of controversial or extraordinary claims from a responsible, scientific point of view and disseminates factual information about the results of such inquiries to the scientific community, the media, and the public."

A shorter version of the mission statement appears in every issue: “... promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.” A previous mission statement referred to “investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims,” but the 2006 change recognized and ratified a wider purview for SI that includes new science-related issues at the intersection of science and the public while not ignoring core topics. A history of the first two decades is available in The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal published in 1998 by S.I. editor Kendrick Frazier.

Kendrick Frazier, who has edited Skeptical Inquirer since August 1977, has described the magazine as “an unusual hybrid: part semipopular magazine and part scientific and scholarly journal.” He said, “I think it’s fair to say that we not only help to cross disciplinary barriers within scientific fields but bridge the gaps between the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ sciences, between science and the humanities, between academics and nonacademics, and between science and the general public.”

Frazier has also frequently spoken of the broader goals and higher values of skeptical inquiry that he says the Skeptical Inquirer tries to exemplify: "We skeptics do it all, investigating the smallest strange mysteries while also explaining the powerful tools of science and reason and applying them to thinking about the broadest issues of concern and confusion in today’s complex societies."

Daniel Loxton writing in 2013 about the mission and goals of the skeptical movement quoted an editor of the Swedish skeptic magazine Folkvett who felt that SI was a magazine written by '"old white men, for old white men"'. He criticized the idea that people wanted to read about the paranormal, Uri Geller and crystal skulls not being relevant any longer. Paul Kurtz in 2009 seemed to share this sentiment and stated that the organization would still research some paranormal subjects as they have expertise in this area, but they would begin to investigate other areas, S.I. '“has reached an historic juncture: the recognition that there is a critical need to change our direction."' While editor Frazier did expand the scope of the magazine to include topics less paranormal and more that were an attack on science and critical thinking such as climate change denialism, conspiracy theories and the influence of the alt-med movement, Frazier also added that "paranormal beliefs are still widespread" and quoted surveys that state that the public given a list of ten general paranormal topics will select four as a topic they believe in. While the general skeptic community believes that we should not waste more time debunking the paranormal, topics long ago discredited, Frazier says "millions of Americans accept them today."

Writing for Scientific American Douglas Hofstadter states that the purpose of Skeptical Inquirer magazine is to "combat nonsense... nonsensical claims are routinely smashed to smithereens." He writes that articles are written for everyone that can read English, no special knowledge or expertise is needed, the only requirement is "curiosity about truth".

Print magazine
In addition to the columns and articles, the magazine includes reviews of paranormal and skeptic books of note written by staff or guest writers. A "Letter to the Editor" section is also included. The magazine inside covers note current CSI fellows, Scientific and Technical Consultants as well as Affiliated Organizations. Also listed are CFI locations worldwide. The final page features a Skeptical Anniversaries section written by Tim Farley and a Carbon Dating cartoon strip written and drawn by Kyle Sanders from CarbonComic.com.

Non-print mediae
The magazine's website features additional content including a store, and an archive of online articles (distinct from those in the hardcopy magazine) dating back to 1994 which are made available without a subscription. One column is written in Spanish, and a selection of English articles on the site also have a Spanish language translation available. Also, a mobile app is available which supports online subscription or individual digital issues.

History
The magazine was originally titled The Zetetic (from the Greek meaning skeptical seeker or inquiring skeptic) and was originally edited by Marcello Truzzi. The first issue was dated Fall/Winter 1976. About a year after its inception a schism developed between the editor Truzzi and the rest of CSICOP. One side (CSICOP) was more "firmly opposed to nonsense, more willing to go on the offensive and to attack supernatural claims" and the other side ("The relativist faction (one member)", i.e. Truzzi) wanted science and pseudoscience to exist "happily together". Truzzi left to start The Zetetic Scholar and CSICOP changed the magazine's name to Skeptical Inquirer. In 1977 Kendrick Frazier was appointed editor. He had previously been editor of Science News for six years.

Kurtz noted that there had been “tremendous public fascination with the paranormal” and it was “heavily promoted and sensationalized by an irresponsible media.” He stressed that “Our interest was not simply in the paranormal curiosity shop but to increase an understanding of how science works.”

Historian Daniel Loxton speculates on the answer to the question that if CSICOP was not the first skeptical publication, why is it considered to be the "'birth of modern skepticism' (at least for the English-speaking world)"? Loxton writes that it was because CSICOP organized "this scholarship collectively [and] comprised a distinct field of study." The organization was the first to establish "best practices... specialist experts... buildings... periodicals and professional writers and researchers." In the 1978 Spring and Summer edition, it was announced that the very next issue (Vol III, No 1) publication would move from semi-annual to quarterly.

From 1976 to 1995 the magazine had a digest-sized format. It was agreed to change to the larger more traditional sized pages and in 1995 it was decided that in order to become more timely with its topics it would be published bi-monthly instead of quarterly. The U.K. magazine The Skeptic was first published in close association with SI. In 2014 the British version was handed back to the U.K. Skeptics.

Thirtieth anniversary, 2006
For the thirtieth anniversary of the Skeptical Inquirer in 2006, CSICOP founder Paul Kurtz listed four long-standing policies: "# to criticize claims of the paranormal and pseudoscience
 * 1) to replicate the methods of scientific inquiry and the nature of the scientific outlook
 * 2) to seek a balanced view of science in the mass media
 * 3) to teach critical thinking in the schools."

According to Kurtz, in the first twenty years, the magazine attempted to focus on the paranormal. Solving mysteries that were outside the range of normal: frogs dropping from the sky, UFO abductions, cattle mutilations and more. Readers expected the magazine to have explanations. Kurtz states that these were exciting years, especially working with magicians who would often replicate the paranormal claim. The magazine often received criticism from the paranormal community, that they were being made fun of. Skeptical Inquirer according to Kurtz kept the focus on investigations, gathering together a network of people who excelled in research of the paranormal. Kurtz felt that interest in the paranormal was beginning to fail, one piece of evidence he used for this was that so few paranormal books were on the New York Times Bestseller list that had been there years before. He suggested that SI should expand into areas that have controversy, appeal to the public, and where SI could pull from its network of people to investigate. Subjects he selected for consideration were stem cell research, cyberterrorism "biogenetic engineering, religion, economics, ethics, and politics". Some of these subjects Kurtz was happy to point out that Frazier was already exploring. Kurtz concluded his overview of the past thirty years by thanking subscribers for their financial support, the Internet had caused subscriptions of print magazines to drop, and only by expanding outreach has SI been able to survive.

"The enduring contribution of the Skeptical Inquirer in its first three decades, I submit, has been its persistent efforts to raise the level of the public understanding of science. – Paul Kurtz"

Fortieth anniversary, 2016
In a review of forty years of organized skepticism published in 2015, Frazier wrote, "...we have done our best to keep aglow the light of reason and rationality and to cultivate scientific thinking in the wider public. We have critically examined thousands of individual claims and assertions, and published the results for the world to see. We have explored virtually every issue important to skeptics. We have encouraged greater skepticism in the news media and served them as a source of reliable scientific information. We have done our best to make others aware of the dangers to a democracy of all confusions between reality and fantasy, sense and nonsense, and real science and its pretenders and adversaries."

Influence
Several notable skeptics have described the influence the magazine had on them during the early stages of their development as scientific skeptics. In 1995, Perry DeAngelis and Steven Novella were friends that played Dungeons and Dragons together until DeAngelis noticed a Skeptical Inquirer magazine on the table in Novella's condo. DeAngelis who was also an avid reader of the magazine, pointed out the back page to Novella and said "What is missing?" DeAngelis stated that what was missing was a Connecticut skeptic group, he said "we should do this" to which Novella agreed. They started the New England Skeptical Society and eventually the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe (SGU) podcast.

Skeptic Susan Gerbic writes that finding a Skeptical Inquirer magazine one day in the library started her on the path of critical thinking. "I wish I could remember which articles were in it, but I’m sure I was intrigued by the cover art... it was probably in the very early 1980s. It was like a light bulb went off. It was like walking down a hallway and opening doors into subjects I didn’t know existed. Some topics made me say to myself, 'People believe in that crazy thing?' and other topics made me say, 'Wait, that isn’t real?'"

Writing for Scientific American, Douglas Hofstadter asks the question, why would Skeptical Inquirer succeed when the only people who read it are people who do not believe in the paranormal? The answer, he says, lies in the back of the magazine in the "Letters to the Editor" section. "Many people write in to say how vital the magazine has been to them, their friends and their students. High school teachers are among the most frequent writers of thank-you notes to the magazine's editors, but I have also seen enthusiastic letters from members of the clergy, radio talk-show hosts and people in many other professions."

Daniel Loxton in his essay "Ode to Joy" about discovering Skeptical Inquirer magazine as a freshman at his University writes... {{quotation|But the true treasure, the lamp at the end of the cave, the thing that helped set the course of my life, was hidden away in the periodical collection: a complete set of the Skeptical Inquirer, going back to its launch in 1976. I couldn’t believe such a wealth of skeptical research existed! I worked my way through the stack systematically, hungrily.... I’ve been thinking of that experience a lot recently. These last weeks have been a rough ride for many skeptics, as longstanding debates about the scope and tone of skepticism have collided with the decentralized, organic nature of skepticism 2.0. I care a lot about those issues, advocating often for a back to basics approach to skepticism—a traditional, science-based skepticism that solves mysteries and educates the public. So, I thought: why not really go back to the beginning? Why not go back to my own roots as a skeptic, reading those old back issues—and back further, to the roots of the skeptical project? The Achilles heel of skepticism 2.0 may be that new skeptics are unfamiliar with the literature. And so, these last few days I’ve been losing myself in Skeptical Inquirer issues from 1977 and 1978. I’m falling in love all over again. The directness of those early voices is inspiring: here were investigable mysteries, and by god, skeptics were going to solve them. And they did. I’m learning a great deal by looking back once again at how they worked, about how things have changed and about how they haven’t... We’ve come a long way since 1976—further since the days of Houdini—but we’ve got things to learn from those who set us on this path. Let’s have another look at what those things are.{{R|Joy}}

Levy and Olynyk art project
Inspired by the four decades of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, the exhibition Some Provocations from Skeptical Inquirers by artists Ellen Levy and Patricia Olynyk, was featured at the Baruch College Mishkin Gallery in February 2016. Reviewer Eileen G'Sell writes that they "plumb the depths of the murky ontological sea that is empirical belief." Reviewer states that the work represents, "this built-in confrontation between fact and fiction was the basis of the Skeptical Inquirer itself and its playful willingness to consider the most unlikely phenomena.

Fellows, board of directors, contributors and staff
The CSI Executive Council serves as the editorial board of the Skeptical Inquirer. Members as of April 2016 were: Kendrick Frazier, James Alcock, Harriet Hall, Ray Hyman, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Elizabeth Loftus, Steven Novella, Amardeo Sarma, Eugenie Scott, Karen Stollznow, Dave Thomas, and Leonard Tramiel. In addition to these Executive Council members, CSI's senior research fellow and SI “Investigative Files” columnist Joe Nickell also serves on the SI editorial board. CSI Executive Director Barry Karr is an ex officio member.

As of April 2016, the consulting editors are Susan Blackmore, Kenneth Feder, Barry Karr, Richard Wiseman, Ed Krupp and Jay Pasachoff. Contributing editors are D.J. Grothe, Harriet Hall, Kenneth Krause, David Morrison, James Oberg, Massimo Pigliucci, Robert Sheaffer and Dave Thomas.

The staff consists of the following:
 * Editor, Kendrick Frazier
 * Deputy Editor, Ben Radford
 * Managing Editor, Julia Lavarnway
 * Assistant editor, Nicole Scott
 * Art director, Christopher Fix
 * Webmaster, Mark Kreidler
 * Publisher's representative, Barry Karr

CSI currently has about a hundred distinguished fellows.
 * Notable fellows of the past include Isaac Asimov, Martin Gardner, Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, and Nobel laureates Francis Crick and Glenn T. Seaborg.
 * Current notable fellows include Banachek, Robert Bartholomew, Susan Blackmore, Mark Boslough, Sean B. Carroll, Richard Dawkins, Ann Druyan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Daniel Dennett, Kevin Folta, Kendrick Frazier, Susan Gerbic, David Gorski, Deborah Hyde, Ray Hyman, Lawrence Krauss, Elizabeth Loftus, Michael Mann, Joe Nickell, Steven Novella, Bill Nye, Paul Offit, Naomi Oreskes, Massimo Polidoro, Ben Radford, James Randi, Richard Saunders, Seth Shostak, Joe Schwarcz, Eugenie Scott, Jill Tarter, Stuart Vyse, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, E.O. Wilson, and Richard Wiseman.

Scientists, scholars, investigators, and other experts worldwide contribute feature articles, columns, reviews, and commentaries to the print and online magazine.

Print magazine columns and columnists

 * Notes of a Fringe-Watcher (originally titled, Notes of a Psi-Watcher) – Martin Gardner, 1983-2010
 * Investigative Files – Joe Nickell, 1995–present
 * Psychic Vibrations – Robert Sheaffer, 1977–2017
 * Notes of a Strange World – Massimo Polidoro, 2002–present
 * Thinking About Science – Massimo Pigliucci, 2002–2015
 * Skeptical Inquiree – Ben Radford, 2006–present
 * Science Watch – Kenneth Krause, 2010–present
 * The Science of Medicine – Steven Novella, 2010
 * The Science of Science Communication – Matthew Nisbet, 2016–present
 * Behavior & Belief – Stuart Vyse, 2016–present
 * The Last Laugh – Ian Patrick Harris, 2017–present
 * Reality Is the Best Medicine – Harriet Hall, 2018 (began with issue 42.5)

Online magazine columns and columnists
The magazine's website features new and recent articles, as well as an archive dating back to 1994; all are available without a subscription. A small selection of articles also have Spanish versions available. Most articles are organized into the following columns:

Active

 * Special Report – Various columnists, 2007–present
 * Curiouser and Curiouser – Kylie Sturgess, 2010–present
 * Guerrilla Skepticism – Susan Gerbic, 2013–present
 * Behavior & Belief – Stuart Vyse, 2014–present
 * Conference Report – Various columnists, 2014–present
 * SkepDoc's Corner – Harriet Hall, 2015–present
 * Consumer Health – William M. London, 2015–present
 * CSICon – Susan Gerbic and others, 2016–present
 * The Well-Known Skeptic – Rob Palmer, 2018–present
 * The Wide World of Science – Jamie Hale, 2018–present
 * A Closer Look – Kenny Biddle, 2018–present
 * European Skeptics Chronicles – Annika Merkelbach, 2018–present
 * The Thoughtful Conduit – Russ Dobler, 2018–present
 * In Memoriam – Various columnists, 2019–present
 * Letter to America – Wendy M. Grossman, 2019–present
 * But What Do I Know – Ada McVean, 2020–present

Inactive
These columns are no longer active. (It has been over one year since the last article was published):
 * Psychic Predictions – Gene Emery, 1994–2002
 * Opinion – Various authors, 1999–2010
 * Generation sXeptic – Matt Nisbet, 2000–2001
 * Doubt and About – Chris Mooney (with one article co-authored by Matt Nisbet), 2002–2006
 * Science and the Media – Matt Nisbet, 2003–2008
 * Superstition Bash – Unidentified authors, 2004
 * The Good Word – 2009–2011
 * Voice in the Dark (theater) – LaRae Meadows, 2009–2011
 * Circumnavigations – Austin Dacey, 2009–2012
 * Counterclockwise – Kentaro Mori, 2010
 * Responding to Public Questions and Misconceptions – David Morrison, 2010–2011
 * All Info All Ways – Barrett Brown, 2010–2011
 * Online Extras – Various authors, 2010–2016
 * Paparruchas! (Spanish language) – Luis Alfonso Gámez, 2010–2018
 * CSI Staff – Unidentified authors, 2011
 * Skepchick – Rebecca Watson, 2011–2015
 * Guest Opinion – Hayley Stevens, 2012
 * Paul the Morning Heretic – Paul Fidalgo, 2012
 * Sounds Sciencey – Sharon A. Hill, 2012–2014
 * The Conspiracy Guy & This Week in Conspiracy – Robert Blaskiewicz, 2012–2018
 * Reductio ad Absurdum – Kyle Hill, 2013
 * Poppycock – Carrie Poppy, 2013–2017
 * Use and Abuse of the Fossil Record – Penny Higgins, 2014–2016
 * Media Mind – Tamar Wilner, 2015–2017
 * TIES – Bertha Vazquez, 2017
 * Practical Debunking – Mick West, 2018
 * Woo Watch – Kavin Senapathy, 2018–2019

Special editions and anthologies
Over the years a number of anthologies of Skeptical Inquirer articles have been published by permission or arrangement with CSI. Five general anthologies of SI articles have been published by Prometheus Books
 * K. Frazier, ed. Science Under Siege: Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience (Prometheus Books, 2009).
 * K. Frazier, ed. Encounters with the Paranormal: Science, Knowledge, and Belief (Prometheus Books, 1998)
 * K. Frazier, ed. The Hundredth Monkey and Other Paradigms of the Paranormal (Prometheus Books, 1991.
 * K. Frazier, ed. Science Confronts the Paranormal (Prometheus Books, 1986)
 * K. Frazier, ed. Paranormal Borderlands of Science (Prometheus Books, 1981)

In addition, Prometheus also published this special-themed SI anthology
 * K. Frazier, B.Karr, and J.Nickell, eds. The UFO Invasion: The Roswell Incident, Alien Abductions, and Government Coverups (Prometheus Books, 1997).

In addition to these, CSICOP (or CSI) has also published a number of small anthologies of short SI articles, often used for subscription promotion purposes and not always widely available.
 * The Outer Edge (ed. By J.Nickell, B.Karr, and T.Genoni, 1996;)
 * Bizarre Cases [no editor listed, 2000)

In 2011, Robert Sheaffer collected and republished the first two decades (1977–1997) of his Psychic Vibrations columns from the Skeptical Inquirer in a self-published book titled Psychic Vibrations: Skeptical Giggles from The Skeptical Inquirer. Illustrations by Rob Pudim (also from SI).

Martin Gardner republished most if not all of his Skeptical Inquirer “Notes of a Fringe-Watcher” columns in six of his books. With many he added informative “Afterwords” or “Postscripts.” In most of these books the first half consisted of his most recent SI columns; the second half, his reviews and writings for other periodicals.
 * The New Age: Notes of a Fringe-Watcher, Prometheus Books, 1991.
 * On the Wild Side, Prometheus Books, 1992.
 * Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic: More Notes of a Fringe-Watcher, Prometheus, 1996.
 * Did Adam and Eve Have Navels? W.W. Norton, 2000.
 * Are Universes Thicker Than Blackberries? W.W. Norton, 2003.
 * The Jinn from Hyperspace. Prometheus, 2008

Mission Statement and Influence too puff?
Hi! I believe that the mission statement and the influence section are problematic and should be shortened significantly to prevent the highly promotional feel of the sections. My analysis below: Mission Statement: Main quote (taking most of the section) is written by people that have contributed to the publication or are closely related to it. If the mission statement was notable enough, third party non-partisan (re: non-Skeptic) sources would have talked about it. Until that is shown, the section should be shortened to just the sentence from Scientific American. If people want to know the mission statement, they should go to the page's website. There's a reason why Apple Inc.'s mission statement is barely described in its article and is only mentioned in a very brief sentence within a large section about their branding. Influence: None of this is written by RS sources that would have the reputation to warrant their opinion's inclusion. Descriptions of people playing D&D, enthusiastic letters from fans, or an opinion from a contributor to the publication are not notable assessments of the publication's legacy. Something like NYT, New Yorker, academic sources, or other such publications would be much better. I think the section on the art project is probably fine, but if you remove the biased sources you'd probably just have that and a sentence or two from Hofstadter (he was given an award from SI's parent company so his bias could be put in question, but seeing how the linked article is paywalled I'll AGF on that). A. C. Santacruz &#8258;  Talk  18:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed lead rewrite
I think the lead could be rewritten and truncated a bit to bring it in line with MOS:LEADREL

Here is my proposed rewrite that removes some some LEADREL considerations, including the "celebrated its 40th anniversary" and the extended explanation of the renaming of CSI, which is confusing, because it was published by the same org the the whole time:


 * Skeptical Inquirer is a bimonthly American general-audience magazine published by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) with the subtitle: The Magazine for Science and Reason. In 2016 it celebrated its fortieth anniversary. For most of its existence, the Skeptical Inquirer (SI) was published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, widely known by its acronym CSICOP. In 2006 the CSICOP Executive Council shortened CSICOP's name to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and broadened its mission statement.

to


 * Skeptical Inquirer is a bimonthly American general-audience magazine published by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) with the subtitle: The Magazine for Science and Reason.

What do you think? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight?
It seems undue weight to start the Mission statement section with the critique that it is seen by some as a publication for “old white men, for old white men"'. Also, does everything have to be about race and gender now?? 82.35.81.189 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

COI tag (June 2024)
Frequently edited by editors that write for SI or are members of CSI/CFI ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've removed some of the most egregious stuff, though most of what remains is still just republishing what it and its members/writers say about it. Are there actual secondary sources discussing this magazine in any detail? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)