Committee for Skeptical Inquiry ™ “... promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use Skep ti cal In quir er of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.” THE MAG A ZINE FOR SCI ENCE AND REA SON EDI TOR Kend rick Fra zi er DEPUTY EDI TOR Ben ja min Rad ford MANA GING EDI TOR Julia Lavarnway [ FROM THE EDITOR ASSISTANT EDITOR Nicole Scott ART DIRECT OR Christo pher Fix Issues in Science and PRODUC TION Paul E. Loynes WEBMASTER Matthew Licata o mark our fortieth anniversary, we invited distinguished scientists, scholars, PUBLISH ER’S REPRE SENT A TIVE Bar ry Karr and investigators associated with the and Committee EDI TO RI AL BOARD James E. Al cock, Harriet Hall, for Skeptical Inquiry to give us their thoughts. In contrast to earlier anniver- Ray Hy man, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Elizabeth Loftus, Joe T Nickell, , Am ar deo Sar ma, Eugenie C. saries emphasizing our founding leaders, this time we gave priority to scientists Scott, Karen Stollznow, David E. Thomas, and skeptics who have come to prominence in the skeptical world in more or less Leonard Tramiel CONSULT ING EDI TORS Sus an J. Black more, the last twenty years. We had such a resounding response that we have decided to Ken neth L. Fed er, Barry Karr, E.C. Krupp, do two anniversary issues: in this first one we present a series of insightful essays Jay M. Pasachoff, Rich ard Wis e man CONTRIB UT ING EDI TORS D.J. Grothe, Harriet Hall, on Issues in Science and Skepticism; in the next we will present personal Odysseys Kenneth W. Krause, David Morrison, James E. Oberg, in Scientific Skepticism. Massimo Pigliucci, Rob ert Sheaf fer, David E. Thomas In this brief space, we can’t begin to summarize all the issues and provocative ideas you will find in these pages. They vary widely. Here are just a few. Bill Nye Published in association with calls for putting science and reason to work against science deniers and biblical lit- eralists and preventing an impending climate catastrophe. We used to be a nation CHAIR Edward Tabash of innovators, he notes; with regard to climate we may have stalled, but our old CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Robyn Blumner PRESIDENT Ronald A. Lindsay get-it-done determination can be reinvigorated. Neil deGrasse Tyson describes CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Barry Karr what science is and isn’t. Not fooling yourself is the crucial starting point. An- CORPO RATE COUNSEL Nicholas J. Little, other lesson: the objective truths that science eventually establishes—after much Brenton N. VerPloeg to and fro—exist outside your own personal perception of reality. “They are true BUSINESS MANA GER Pa tri cia Beau champ whether or not you believe in them.” Lawrence M. Krauss warns of the dangers of FISCAL OFFI CER Paul Pau lin Jacalyn Mohr ignorant demagoguery and calls for more open questioning in all aspects of public SUBSCRIPTION DATA MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR Paul Fidalgo and private life. DIRECT OR OF LIBRAR IES Tim o thy S. Binga Steven Novella offers a wide-ranging review of what skepticism is, what we DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Martina Fern skeptics do, and why. It is a thoughtful reevaluation and self-examination that re- DIRECTOR, COUNCIL FOR SECULAR HUMANISM minds us of our mission, our priorities, and certain recurring issues we all struggle Tom Flynn DIRECTOR, CAMPUS AND COMMUNITY PROGRAMS with: matters of political opinion, religious claims, activism, and how different Debbie Goddard people decide what to tackle and what to ignore. Within skepticism, there is no DIRECTOR, AFRICAN AMERICANS FOR HUMANISM one answer. We all treasure science and reason, but we are otherwise a diverse Debbie Goddard BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Edward Tabash (chair), lot. Richard Wiseman tells why he is optimistic about the future of skepticism. Brian Engler, Kendrick Frazier, Barry A. Kosmin, Hint: It involves some of the same things, seen more positively, that worry other Y. Sherry Sheng, Leonard Tramiel. (Honorary): Rebecca Goldstein, Susan Jacoby, skeptics. Lawrence Krauss. In case you fear that all this may be too self-congratulatory, Scott O. Lilien- feld and Sharon Hill quickly puncture that balloon. Lilienfeld thinks skepticism can do better. He offers a report card that, as he says, gives “ample reason for soul-searching.” He worries about the extent to which our aims conflict, the ef- fectiveness (or lack thereof) of our debunking efforts, and the need to consider research on cognitive development in spreading scientific thinking skills to the broader public. Sharon Hill offers nothing less than a powerful critique of the ’s style and effectiveness. She knows how important a strong skeptical presence is to counter the nonsense out there (that’s what she does), but she says skepticism needs a total reboot. And that’s just the beginning. Philosopher Daniel Dennett considers the tricky question of authority in skepticism; science is based on evidence, not au- thority, but he decries postmodern relativism and “hyper-egalitarians” who eschew rational judgments. And, along with fellow essayists Daniel J. Helfand and Krauss, he worries about the effect of the Internet in making everyone think they are ex- Eleven prominent leaders in scientific skepticism cel- ebrate the 40th anniversary of the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER perts whether or not they follow the self-correcting precepts of scientific thinking. and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry with a series And so it goes. Plunge into this intellectual, real-world thought-fest. Drink of personal essays probing important issues in sci- ence and skepticism. deeply. Think well. —KenDrick FraZier