streamline

As a fledgling indie writer in LA LA Land, I am currently forced to keep a rather tight budget. All the same, I am tired of trying to score (vandalized) library copies or spending my time in Barnes & Noble leaning against the magazine racks, doing my best to look like, yeah, I fully intend on buying what I'm reading here .. never mind I've been at it for over an hour.... IN SHORT, I am trying to decide where best to allocate my spare dollars -- in a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer or SKEPTIC? I am a long-time subscriber to Free Inquiry (as well as Philo -- a disappointment so far, but that is an entirely different post for another time), so I feel like I have a bit of a handle on the SI end of things, ie, disappointingly flimsy and short on pages each time I eagerly grab it off the rack. However, for all the eye-catching covers and more sensationalistic graphics in SKEPTIC, there is something about Shermer's approach to science and skepticism that bugs me...I am not sure what...as if somehow he seems too caught up in being a celebrity in the skeptical circles, and lacks the detached rigor I get out of the pages of Skeptical Inquirer. Then again, maybe I am way off base -- any suggestions or thoughts to offer on this choice?

Dominus Paradoxum

Personally I would go with skeptic, because they at least seem interested in the truth, wheras csicop is pretty closed-minded and usually paints the proponents of the paranormal as raving idiots. Not to say that some aren't, but not all of them are. But you should probably go with the one you like the best.

Arken

I have had subscriptions to both (lack of funds lately has made me decide to drop all magazine subscriptions unfortunately). I find that they are both good for different things. You can sort of think of Skeptic and Skeptical Inquierer respectively as the New Scientist and Nature of the skeptic world. The former is terrific for easy-to-understand articles that anyone can enjoy, the latter is great for more in-depth, more scientific articles.

Secular Pinoy

I had to make a similar decision, and I chose SI. Their in-depth analysis of paranormal claims are far better than Shermer's pop-sci approach. And most articles in Skeptic are culled from already-printed articles from Shermer's books, and some from Pigliucci. I receive letters from Skeptic Society asking me to renew my subscription, but as long as I have financial difficulties, I will just have to make do with SI (and their members-only newsletter Skeptical Briefs).

JGL53

Obviously, this is the best advice. And I would also agree with Arken's view.

I used to subscribe to both, but now I skim them at Borders, and just read the articles I find of interest.

Like you, I am somewhat put off by Shermer's, shall we say, personality. In short, he seems to have an ego bigger than mine, and I don't like that.

Years ago, he wrote an article about how atheism per se is illogical and how agnosticism is the only way to go. He published my letter disputing him (I explained the strong/weak choice) , but he replied to me, basically, "I know more about atheism than you do, even though you're one and I'm not".

So, to be honest, I suppose that's the real reason I don't care for him much - though some of the Skeptic's articles are interesting.

streamline

Thanks all for your replies... I am indeed going to go with the one I like best -- or better -- that being Skeptical Inquirer.

Secular Pinoy -- too true on the repeat of Shermer's writings. I think he essentially uses SKEPTIC as a practice game for his writings and theories, which he then polishes up for mass consumption in his books. I recall paging through Why People Believe Weird Things in the bookstore, and thinking, now how is it I've read this entire book already..? Incidentally, is it just me, or does he seem to have a severe fetish for feedback loops of all kinds? As well as the ideas of the late SJGould? The SKEPTIC bookstore seems to be 3/4 Gould and Shermer's own books. A feedback 360, indeed.

JGL53 -- I actually remember that letter you wrote, since I was thinking, yea, take that Shermer. I think you hit it on the head regarding why Shermer annoys me. His comments in the afterword sections of How We Believe, where he does a bit of handwaving and summarily dismisses the philosophical works of Michael Martin ("how many angels can dance on a head of a pin" crack leveled at Martin) really got under my skin, and to me, revealed the lack of rigor involved in Shermer's own thinking on the subject, particularly his thick-headed insistence on using the terms 'agnostic' and 'non-theist' in place of atheist. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, smells like a duck, tastes like a duck, swims like a duck, speaks at conferences with other ducks and regularly debates anti-ducks, it's a ....... agnostic????

I just finished reading scientist Taner Edis' excellent book, Ghost in the Universe, and I found myself agreeing with Edis' condemnation of much of metaphysics (in particular, the theists' ontological argu-farce as a sterile trip into Never Never Land). At the same time, as one who also enjoys reading the works of atheist philosophers-qua-philosophers like Martin, Drange and Oppy, I never once found myself getting annoyed or upset with Edis. I read too much of Shermer, and I find myself wanting to bitch-slap him.

Skeptical Inquirer, it is...

bocajeff

Barnes & Noble doesn't have a policy against reading the magazines. I've been doing that for years in Barnes & nobles across the country and have never heard a word from anybody. I think they even encourage it for some reason. In fact I would suggest grabbing the mags and sitting down at the coffee part of B&N. As long as its not busy you can sit there as long as you'd like.

So in short, save your money.