The New Skeptic: Welcome
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c1b9c/c1b9c2103ab15f7c86009638f2b544be1d831950" alt="The New Skeptic: Welcome"
Consider the word “skeptic.” What image does it evoke? A cynic? Someone who doubts everything? Many conflate skepticism with pure doubt, but true skepticism is far richer. It is thoughtful inquiry and open-minded analysis. Its essence is captured by Spinoza’s timeless dictum, “not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.”
This commitment to understanding different viewpoints is at the heart of meaningful discourse—yet, in practice, it is often abandoned. Public debates—on issues from abortion and climate change to the principle of free speech—tend to degenerate into a melee of name-calling and outrage. Genuine skepticism, however, demands thoughtful engagement. It insists that we immerse ourselves in diverse perspectives, striving to understand them thoroughly before reaching reasoned conclusions. It calls for intellectual honesty—the willingness to consider opposing arguments without succumbing to anger or mockery, even when the evidence seems overwhelmingly in favor of one side.
Skepticism requires the ability to grasp opposing arguments without resorting to anger or ridicule, even when the evidence overwhelmingly shows they’re wrong.
Indeed, one of the greatest obstacles to having an accurate understanding of reality isn’t just having your facts wrong—it’s the human tendency to moralize our biases. We rarely think of ourselves as extremists or ideologues.
Instead, we often embrace belief systems that validate our most destructive impulses, fooling ourselves into thinking we’re champions of justice. Some of the most toxic voices in our society are utterly convinced that they stand on the right side of history. Skepticism requires the courage and conscious effort to step outside that mindset.
If this resonates with you, then welcome—you’ve found your intellectual home.
People rarely think of themselves as extremists or ideologues. Instead, they find belief systems that validate their most destructive impulses. Skepticism requires the courage to step outside that mindset.
And there’s more: even when we adopt Spinoza’s dictum, our understanding of the world will be lacking if the very foundation of our knowledge—the very basis on which you (and others) make decisions—doesn’t accurately reflect the world. This is where critical thinking and the tools of science come in.
Skeptic magazine: A Commitment to Depth and Balance
Skeptic is a leading popular science magazine that explores the biggest questions in science, technology, society, and culture with a relentless commitment to truth. We don’t push an agenda—we follow the evidence. Every article, before it’s published, is put to the test: Is this really accurate? How could it be wrong? Do the cited sources support the claims being made? Our mission is clear—to cut through misinformation and dogma, delivering sharp, evidence-based analysis grounded in reality.
So, what can you expect to find in our pages? Long-form, analytical pieces that explore complex issues in depth constitute the vast majority of our work. At times, we may also feature op-eds—particularly when they emerge from rigorous research and present an intriguing, contrarian perspective. And when an issue carries significant weight, we may publish “the best case for...” articles—usually pairing them with an equally strong piece presenting the counterargument(s). As an example, our recent coverage of abortion after the Roe v. Wade ruling featured my own explanation of the pro-choice position, Danielle D’Souza Gill’s robust argument against abortion (quoting none other than Christopher Hitchens!), and a comprehensive Skeptic Research Center report analyzing public attitudes toward the issue (it turns out most people don’t understand the effects of overturning Roe).
In today’s age of activism, this balanced approach might seem unassertive. But the truth is, absolute certainties are rare. We can only approximate truth, and what constitutes “truth” varies by domain—science, politics, law, journalism, and ethics all demand different methods of reasoning. Put simply, our mission is to present what is known about the world as rigorously as possible.
You, the reader, decide where you stand.
So, are you simply believers in “The Science”?
Lately, the rallying cry “Trust the Science” has become a viral meme—a slogan that, on the surface, criticizes the limitations of science in being able to solve complex problems. Yet, a closer look reveals two deeper issues. First, some public science communicators are overstating consensus and stepping into the policy arena—territory traditionally reserved for politicians and activists. Second, many academic institutions have allowed ideology to seep into their departments, undermining strict adherence to the scientific method and neutral, dispassionate inquiry. This contamination isn’t confined to academia; even reputable popular science outlets have been affected. The net result is a degradation of trust in deep expertise and the scientific approach, allowing less rigorous voices to gain prominence.
In truth, trusting science—meaning evidence gathered through systematic, methodical inquiry—remains our best tool for uncovering reality. But conflating this with blind faith in public science figures is a category error. Science is not a priesthood, and consensus is not dogma.
Likewise, flawed research built on unfalsifiable assumptions can only be dismantled through relentless skepticism and the unwavering application of the scientific method; within its fallibility lies the greatest strength of science: self-correction.
Whether mistakes are made honestly or dishonestly, whether a fraud is knowingly or unknowingly perpetrated, in time it will be flushed out of the system through the lack of external verification. The cold fusion fiasco is a classic example of the system’s swift consequences for error and hasty publication; the purported link between vaccines and autism was debunked in the 1990s, and yet still persists in some circles, which indicates that reason, like freedom, requires eternal vigilance.
Despite built-in mechanisms science is still subject to a number of problems and fallacies that even the most careful scientist and skeptic are aware can be troublesome. We can, however, find inspiration in those who have overcome them to make monumental contributions to our understanding of the world.
Charles Darwin is a sterling example of a scientist who struck the right balance between total acceptance of and devotion to the status quo, and an open willingness to explore and accept new ideas. This delicate balance forms the basis of the whole concept of paradigm shifts in the history of science.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ae718/ae718e0f76345d85d0be9e02199cdce1b7c63c8d" alt="white concrete statue of a man"
The Next Chapter: A New Era for Skeptic
It’s been over 30 years since Pat Linse and I founded Skeptic magazine and the Skeptics Society, our 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to science research and education—a modest beginning in my garage that has since blossomed into one of the world’s most influential popular science publications.
Along the way, we’ve had the honor of collaborating with some of the greatest thinkers of our time, including our current Editorial Board members Jared Diamond, Steven Pinker, and Richard Dawkins, amongst many.
While Pat’s passing left an irreplaceable void, our team has doubled down on the mission to promote an evidence-based understanding of the world.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5a25a/5a25ab4383c16a16d1b49c89e97a864b61b70e0e" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9c7a4/9c7a4d1ec593bb82049e41d854cd0dea970f9cd1" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e6ba1/e6ba175804b4a9b2dee5feec5dcfc48af19e4b9d" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b7164/b7164d2ae9f281cae4d61c1d8bbbf0d438fcee4f" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/db59e/db59ea7ad2b1fb41cc1caba153962bbd06ca3c24" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0c94f/0c94f6a3d694bd388a5a108b73b9808593f3d920" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/74fdf/74fdfeb7ff94a9b2cde22ba06a36973bc33a58ae" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eaa16/eaa16db566ecf1197eebc3fc90bbc642cc917112" alt=""
A glimpse into the past: Pat, Randi, Tanja, me, and our old offices—lost in the Los Angeles fires of January 2025 but not forgotten.
Today, I’m proud to announce that our esteemed Editorial Board is joined by three fresh voices—April Bleske-Rechek, Robert Maranto, and Catherine Salmon—whose incisive articles grace our recent issues and this new website.
We’re also delighted to have contributing editor Katherine Brodsky join us, launching her regular column, Culture Code.
Finally, we’re excited to reintroduce the Skeptic Research Center—led by social scientists Kevin McCaffree and Anondah Saide—now with its own dedicated site, where we’ll continue our mission of data-driven inquiry into some of today’s biggest issues.
In celebration of our rich 30+ year history, we’ll also be republishing some of our most timeless articles—works that remain as relevant and thought-provoking now as when they were first written—and publishing many, many more brand-new articles, podcasts, research reports, and even documentary films.
Welcome to the new Skeptic! Let’s explore reality together.