So… Who ARE You Gonna Call? (2015)

This article was originally published at the defunct Insight blog at Skeptic.com on Dec 3, 2015. An archived version is available here.

Outside of Junior Skeptic (my primary ongoing project [2002–2021]) a surprising amount of my professional output—most of my blogging, stage appearances, op-eds (PDF), and interviews—is given over to the oddly controversial argument that my field should exist.

It’s my opinion that “scientific” skepticism should be acknowledged as a distinct field of study with a unique mandate: the critical, science-informed, scholarly examination of paranormal, pseudoscientific, and other fringe claims. Consequently, I’ve rejected (PDF) periodic suggestions that skepticism should shift its focus from fringe topics toward arguably “more important” matters, or that skepticism ought to be subsumed as a side-project within some other sphere (such as “science,” humanism, or atheism). Read more

Thoughts on Chris Stedman’s Faitheist (2012)

This article was originally published at the defunct Skepticblog.org on Nov 27, 2012. An archived version is available here.

I’m drinking my morning coffee as I write this, and thinking about a moving, thought-provoking book I’ve been reading for pleasure: humanist interfaith activist Chris Stedman’s Faitheist: How An Atheist Found Common Ground with the Religious.

I try to follow a number of firm guidelines for my writing at skeptical platforms like Skepticblog. One is never to talk about anything unless I’ve given that thing a thorough look myself—read the book, seen the movie, tracked down the paper, whatever. Another is to keep my personal politics, humanism, and atheism out of my skeptical writing as much as possible. After all, skepticism is not a private clubhouse for people who share my personal values and opinions; it’s a shared workspace for people of many backgrounds to pursue the useful practical task of investigating fringe science and paranormal claims. (Believe this, don’t believe that—who cares? Science and skepticism are about what we can find out.)

But I’m not a robot. I believe stuff. I enjoy stuff. So today I thought I might break my own guidelines and share a few preliminary personal thoughts about an atheist book I haven’t finished reading, but which I am savoring. Read more

The Long Road (2012)

This article was originally published at the defunct Skepticblog.org on Sept 4, 2012. An archived version is available here.

On the road in Alberta, Canada.

Howdy, folks! It’s been a while since my last post. I’ve been buckled down hard under deadlines for my next two books (the followup to my children’s paleofiction book Ankylosaur Attack; and my hefty skeptical tome with Skepticblog’s own Don Prothero, Abominable Science!). But now that I have the chance, I thought I might stop in with a few personal thoughts before jumping back in with more new posts.

Laboring away on those very big projects while also rolling out regular Junior Skeptic articles has taken some doing—working more weekends and holidays and late nights than I care to dwell upon. It’s been a very long road. For my family at least as much as for me. Read more

Carl Sagan and the Dangers of Skepticism (2015)

This article was originally published at the defunct Insight blog at Skeptic.com on May 19, 2015. An archived version is available here.

This is an excerpt from Junior Skeptic 50 (published in 2014 inside Skeptic magazine Vol. 19, No. 1), which is a ten-page biography of Sagan emphasizing his work in scientific skepticism. Junior Skeptic was written for (older) children, and did not include endnotes. Here, I’ve included some relevant citations here for your interest.

Carl Sagan cared a lot about kooky, far out, pseudoscientific topics. He knew this was quite unusual. He introduced a book section on these fringe science topics by saying, “The attention given to borderline science may seem curious to some readers. … The usual practice of scientists is to ignore them, hoping they will go away.”1 He wished other scientists would care more, and that they were more willing to share their criticisms in public:

I believe that scientists should spend more time in discussing these issues…. There are many cases where the belief system is so absurd that scientists dismiss it instantly but never commit their arguments to print. I believe this is a mistake.2

Read more

Bigfoot Versus the Quest for World Peace? (2016)

This article was originally published at the defunct Insight blog at Skeptic.com on May 17, 2016. An archived version is available here.

For the entire history of scientific skepticism, folks in our weird and wonderful little field have heard two criticisms offered with metronomic regularity from people who are “skeptical of the skeptics.”1 One is the obvious: “Skeptics are closed-minded!” The other, no less predictable or routine, is my topic today: “Why do you bother with this trivial stuff about pseudoscience and the paranormal? Aren’t there more important things to worry about?” Read more

Make Wikipedia a Science-Based Resource (2009)

This article was originally published in the defunct eSkeptic newsletter at Skeptic.com on July 22, 2009. An archived version is available here. 2025 NOTE: As Wikipedia is dynamic, I’ve updated the Wikipedia links below to point to Wayback Machine archive versions of those pages as they existed around the date when this article was published. If you are interested in becoming a Wikipedia editor in 2025 or later, please review the relevant current rules.

Is it Worth Paying Attention to Wikipedia?

Yes, it absolutely is. This is a shining opportunity for the skeptical movement. Wikipedia is among the most important public sources for almost any scientific, pseudoscientific, or paranormal topic. A Wikipedia article is almost always the number one Google hit for that subject.

Amazingly, any grassroots skeptic can make responsible improvements to that source at any time, easily and for free. Read more

Bigfoot, Big Con: A Review of The Making of Bigfoot (2004)

This article was originally published in the defunct eSkeptic newsletter at Skeptic.com on April 12, 2004. An archived version is available here.

When Greg Long’s 2004 book The Making of Bigfoot arrived on my desk, I knew it was from Prometheus Books (which is a pretty good start), and about Bigfoot, but nothing else. Having heard none of the buzz about it, I was merely hoping it would prove to be a decent resource for one of my own articles on the sub ject. Then, when I realized that the entire 476-page book was exclusively about the late Roger Patterson’s infamous 1967 “Bigfoot” film, my heart sank. 476 pages on that tired old chestnut? Read more

New Video from Loch Ness: Commentary (2007)

This article was originally published in the defunct eSkeptic newsletter at Skeptic.com on June 13, 2007. An archived version is available here.

The Loch Ness Monster has hit the mainstream news media once again in a video shot by Gordon T. Holmes. Daniel Loxton takes a skeptical look at the video and provides his commentary. Daniel is the editor and illustrator of Junior Skeptic magazine and Skeptic magazine’s resident expert on cryptozoology.

Illustration by Daniel Loxton [later published inside Abominable Science!]


It’s strange what turns out to be newsworthy. As a rule, mainstream news media are all too happy to ignore such traditional skeptics topics as lake monsters; indeed, it is increasingly the case that the dedicated skeptics press has little interest in monsters and things that go bump in the night.

Yet, every once in a while, a cryptozoology story hits the mainstream press with a surprisingly big splash. This is certainly the case with new footage shot by one Gordon Holmes at Loch Ness, which is purported to show Nessie in action. This video of something-or-other on the water has garnered coverage from virtually all the major news providers of the English-speaking world (including CNN, CBS, FOX, BBC, ABC, NBC, MSNBC — even Forbes). Read more

James Randi, Skeptic Extraordinaire (2020)

This article was originally published in Skeptic magazine (US), and in the defunct eSkeptic newsletter at Skeptic.com on Oct 24, 2020. An archived version is available here. (I submitted the piece with a placeholder title. This title was chosen by the editors.)

The skeptical world has lost a towering figure in James Randi, stage magician, lightning rod, and co-founder of the modern skeptical movement. In 1976, Randi joined philosopher Paul Kurtz, astronomer Carl Sagan, psychologist Ray Hyman, science writer Martin Gardner, and other motivated science advocates and critics of fringe claims to establish North America’s first formal skeptical organization, then known as CSICOP—the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (now called CSI, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry).

Randi may be the single most influential person in the history of skepticism from the 1970s through the first decade of the 21st century. His classic book Flim-Flam! is a defining text for scientific skepticism. He pioneered many of skepticism’s investigative techniques, and many of the arguments and attitudes of skeptical activists. While much of the skeptical literature consists of historical sleuthing and critical analysis, Randi was known for his distinct activist approach to confronting paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. His dramatic public exposé of televangelist Peter Popoff remains one of the clearest modern examples of a fringe proponent unmasked by evidence gathered in the field. Most skeptics would describe Randi as a powerful inspiration for their own work, myself included. Read more

Same Darkness, Same Light (2013)

This (lightly edited) article was originally published at the defunct Skepticblog.org on Jan 22, 2013. An archived version is available here.

Black and white photo of Father C. M. de Heredia

Father C. M. de Heredia shows two séance props—a false finger and a comb with a hollow spine—from which “ectoplasm” could be “materialized.”

I had a post ready to go for this morning on the topic of early twentieth century skeptical activist Joseph F. Rinn; but at a couple of thousand words, I thought it might be more appropriate for next week’s eSkeptic. [Read that article, republished here.] Like my last post on the surprisingly complicated history of the skeptical slogan “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence,” my current Junior Skeptic article about second century Roman debunker Lucian of Samosata, and my next Junior Skeptic about two especially hard core early twentieth century skeptical investigators who happened to be women, the new Rinn piece is part of larger exploration I’ve been doing of the skeptical work of the decades, centuries, and even millennia prior to 1976 (the year of the formation of CSICOP, now called CSI—a moment which is usually considered the birth of the fully modern skeptical movement).

The skeptics of previous eras faced a few wrinkles unique to their contexts. How could they not? Yet the more striking thing is how very much repeats over time. The mysteries are the much same, decade after decade, and often identical. The arguments, the exposés, the scams, the rhetoric, and the sense of unique moral urgency—of sliding into a new Dark Age—all these echo across generations. For all the fine mustaches of the early twentieth century skeptical scene (and man, those were some damn fine mustaches) these were people whose mission and challenges were much the same as my own. The sense of continuity this historical perspective brings is—palpable? illuminating? remarkable? Read more