Skeptical Movement

The skeptical movement (British spelling: sceptical movement) is a modern social movement based on the idea of scientific skepticism (also called rational skepticism). Scientific skepticism involves the application of skeptical philosophy, critical-thinking skills, and knowledge of science and its methods to empirical claims, while remaining agnostic or neutral to non-empirical claims (except those that directly impact the practice of science).[1] The movement has the goal of investigating claims made on fringe topics and determining whether they are supported by empirical research and are reproducible, as part of a methodological norm pursuing “the extension of certified knowledge”.[2] The process followed is sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry.[3]

Roots of the movement date at least from the 19th century, when people started publicly raising questions regarding the unquestioned acceptance of claims about spiritism, of various widely-held superstitions, and of pseudoscience.[4][5] Publications such as those of the Dutch Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij (1881) also targeted medical quackery.

Using as a template the Belgian organization founded in 1949, Comité Para, Americans Paul Kurtz and Marcello Truzzi founded the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), in Amherst, New York in 1976. Now known as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), this organization has inspired others to form similar groups worldwide.[6]

Man Thinking Thoughts Sculpture Summer Face

Thinking Man Sculpture

Scientific skepticism

Main article: Skepticism 

Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is an epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence. In practice, the term is most commonly applied to the examination of claims and theories that appear to be beyond mainstream science, rather than to the routine discussions and challenges among scientists. Scientific skepticism is different from Philosophical Skepticism, which questions humans’ ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how they perceive it. Methodological skepticism, a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of one’s beliefs, is similar but distinct. The New Skepticism described by Paul Kurtz is scientific skepticism.[7] For example, Robert K. Merton asserts that all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny (as described in Mertonian norms).[8]

An important difference to classical skepticism, according to religious history professor Olav Hammer, is that it is not directly aligned with classical pyrrhonian scepticism, which would question all sort of orthodox wisdom, as well as the one established by modern science. According to Hammer, “the intellectual forebears of the modern skeptical movement are rather to be found among the many writers throughout history who have argued against beliefs they did not share.”[6]

The following are quotations related to scientific skepticism:

Briefly stated, a skeptic is one who is willing to question any claim to truth, asking for clarity in definition, consistency in logic, and adequacy of evidence. The use of skepticism is thus an essential part of objective scientific inquiry and the search for reliable knowledge.

— Paul Kurtz in The New Skepticism, 1992, p. 9

What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and, especially important, to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premises or starting point and whether that premise is true.

— Carl Sagan in The Demon-Haunted World, 1995, p. 197

Science is […] a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes ambling along.

— Carl Sagan[9]

Scientific skepticism (is) the practice or project of studying paranormal and pseudoscientific claims through the lens of science and critical scholarship, and then sharing the results with the public.

— Daniel Loxton[10]

A skeptic is one who prefers beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid to ones that are comforting or convenient, and therefore rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves. Skepticism values method over any particular conclusion.

— Steven Novella[11]

“Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas—no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position.”

— The Skeptics Society[12]

The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It’s the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.

— Brian Dunning[13]

With regard to the skeptical social movement, Loxton refers to other movements already promoting “humanism, atheism, rationalism, science education and even critical thinking” before.[14] He saw the demand for the new movement—a movement of people called “skeptics” — being based on a lack of interest by the scientific community to address paranormal and fringe science claims. In line with Kendrick Frazier, he describes the movement as a surrogate in that area for institutional science. The movement set up a distinct field of study, and provided an organizational structure, while long-standing genre of individual skeptical activities lacked such a community and background.[14] Skeptical organizations typically tend to have science education and promotion among their goals.[15][16] 

See also: Skeptical Theism and Religious Skepticism


Scientific skeptics maintain that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose.[17] Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds—rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity.[17] From a scientific point of view, theories are judged on many criteria, such as falsifiability,[17] Occam’s Razor,[18] Morgan’s Canon[19] and explanatory power, as well as the degree to which their predictions match experimental results.[17] Skepticism in general may be deemed part of the scientific method; for instance an experimental result is not regarded as established until it can be shown to be repeatable independently.[20]

The skeptic spectrum has been characterized as divided into “wet” and “dry” sceptics, primarily based on the level of engagement with those promoting claims that appear to be pseudoscience; the dry skeptics preferring to debunk and ridicule, in order to avoid giving attention and thus credence to the promoters, and the “wet” skeptics, preferring slower and more considered engagement, in order to avoid appearing sloppy and ill-considered and thus similar to the groups all skeptics opposed.[6]:389

Ron Lindsay has argued that while some of the claims appear to be harmless or “soft targets,” it is important to continue to address them and the underlying habits of thought that lead to them so that we do not “have a lot more people believing that 9/11 was an inside job, that climate change is a hoax, that our government is controlled by aliens, and so forth — and those beliefs are far from harmless.”[21]

The movement has had issues with allegations of sexism. The disparity between women and men in the movement was raised in a 1985 skeptic newsletter by Mary Coulman.[22]:112 The skeptic movement has generally been made up of men; at a 1987 conference the members there discussed the fact that the attendees were predominantly older white men and a 1991 listing of 50 CSICOP fellows included four women.[22]:109 Following a 2011 conference, Rebecca Watson, a prominent skeptic,[23]:57 raised issues of the way female skeptics are targeted with online harassment including threats of sexual violence by opponents of the movement, and also raised issues of sexism within the movement itself. While she received some support in response to her discussion of sexism within the movement, she later became a target of virulent online harassment, even from fellow skeptics, after posting an online video that equated a man showing interest in her with misogyny. This became known as “Elevatorgate”, based on Watson’s discussion about being propositioned in a hotel elevator in the early morning after a skeptic event.[24][25][26]

Debunking and rational inquiry

The term “debunk” is used to describe efforts by skeptics to expose or discredit claims believed to be false, exaggerated, or pretentious. It is closely associated with skeptical investigation or rational inquiry of controversial topics (compare list of topics characterized as pseudoscience) such as U.F.O.s, claimed paranormal phenomena, cryptids, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, religion, or exploratory or fringe areas of scientific or pseudoscientific research.[27]

Further topics that scientifically skeptical literature questions include health claims surrounding certain foods, procedures, and alternative medicines; the plausibility and existence of supernatural abilities (e.g. tarot reading) or entities (e.g. poltergeists, angels, gods—including Zeus); the monsters of cryptozoology (e.g. the Loch Ness monster); as well as creationism/intelligent design, dowsing, conspiracy theories, and other claims the skeptic sees as unlikely to be true on scientific grounds.[28][29]

Skeptics such as James Randi have become famous for debunking claims related to some of these. Paranormal investigator Joe Nickell cautions, however, that “debunkers” must be careful to engage paranormal claims seriously and without bias. He explains that open minded investigation is more likely to teach and change minds than debunking.[30][31]

A striking characteristic of the skeptical movement is the fact that while most of the phenomena covered, such as astrology and homeopathy, have been debunked again and again, they stay popular.[6] Frazier reemphasized in 2018 that “[w]e need independent, evidence-based, science-based critical investigation and inquiry now more than perhaps at any other time in our history.”[32]

The scientific skepticism community has traditionally been focused on what people believe rather than why they believe—there might be psychological, cognitive or instinctive reasons for belief when there is little evidence for such beliefs.[33] According to Hammer, the bulk of the skeptical movement’s literature works on an implicit model, that belief in the irrational is being based on scientific illiteracy or cognitive illusions. He points to the skeptical discussion about astrology: The skeptical notion of astrology as a “failed hypothesis” fails to address basic anthropological assumptions about astrology as a form of ritualized divination. While the anthropological approach attempts to explain the activities of astrologers and their clients, the skeptical movement’s interest in the cultural aspects of such beliefs is muted.[6]

According to sociologist David J. Hess, the skeptical discourse tends to set science and the skeptical project apart from the social and the economic. From this perspective, he argues that skepticism takes on some aspects of a sacred discourse, as in Emile Durkheim’s Elementary Forms of the Religious Life—Science, seen as pure and sacred (motivated by values of the mind and reason), is set apart from popular dealings with the paranormal, seen as profane (permeated by the economic and the social); obscuring the confrontation between science and religion.[34] Hess states as well a strong tendency in othering: both skeptics and their opponents see the other as being driven by materialistic philosophy and material gain and assume themselves to have purer motives.[34]

Perceived dangers of pseudoscience

See also: Anti-cult movement

While not all pseudoscientific beliefs are necessarily dangerous, some can potentially be harmful.[6] Plato believed that to release others from ignorance despite their initial resistance is a great and noble thing.[35] Modern skeptical writers address this question in a variety of ways. Bertrand Russell argued that some individual actions based on beliefs for which there is no evidence of efficacy, can result in destructive actions.[36] James Randi often writes on the issue of fraud by psychics and faith healers.[37] Unqualified medical practice and alternative medicine can result in serious injury and death[38][39].Skeptical activist Tim Farley, who aims to create catalogue of harmful pseudoscientific practices and cases of damage caused by them, estimates documented number of killed or injured to be more than 600.000[40]. Richard Dawkins points to religion as a source of violence (notably in The God Delusion), and considers creationism a threat to biology.[41][42] Some skeptics, such as the members of The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe podcast, oppose certain new religious movements because of their cult-like behaviors.[43]

Leo Igwe, Junior Fellow at the Bayreuth International Graduate School of African Studies[44] and past Research Fellow of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF),[45][46] wrote A Manifesto for a Skeptical Africa,[47] which received endorsements from multiple public activists in Africa, as well as skeptical endorsers around the world.[47] He is a Nigerian human rights advocate and campaigner against the impacts of child witchcraft accusations. Igwe came into conflict with high-profile witchcraft believers, leading to attacks on himself and his family.[48][49]

In 2018, Amardeo Sarma provided some perspective on the state of the skeptical movement by addressing “the essence of contemporary skepticism and [highlighting] the vital nonpartisan and science-based role of skeptics in preventing deception and harm.” He emphasized the dangers of pseudoscience as a reason for prioritizing skeptical work.[50]


Pseudoskepticism (or pseudoscepticism) is a philosophical or scientific position that appears to be that of skepticism or scientific skepticism but in reality fails to be.

Richard Cameron Wilson, in an article in New Statesman, wrote that “the bogus sceptic is, in reality, a disguised dogmatist, made all the more dangerous for his success in appropriating the mantle of the unbiased and open-minded inquirer”. Some advocates of discredited intellectual positions (such as AIDS denial, Holocaust denial and climate change denial) engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as “skeptics”. This is despite their cherry picking of evidence that conforms to a pre-existing belief.[51] According to Wilson, who highlights the phenomenon in his 2008 book Don’t Get Fooled Again, the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it “centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position”.[52]

Scientific skepticism is itself sometimes criticized on this ground. The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in controversial fields where opposition from scientific skeptics is strong. For example, in 1994, Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) fellow in 1991, described what she termed the “worst kind of pseudoskepticism”:

There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion …[53]

Commenting on the labels “dogmatic” and “pathological” that the “Association for Skeptical Investigation”[54] puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Bob Carroll of the Skeptic’s Dictionary[55] argues that that association “is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies.”[56]


Historical roots

Daniel Webster Hering author of Foibles and Fallacies of Science

According to skeptic author Daniel Loxton, “skepticism is a story without a beginning or an end.” His article Why Is There a Skeptical Movement claims a history of two millennia of paranormal skepticism.[57] He is of the opinion that the practice, problems, and central concepts extend all the way to antiquity and refers to a debunking tale as told in some versions of the Old Testament, where the Prophet Daniel exposes a tale of a “living” statue as a scam.[58] According to Loxton, throughout history, there are further examples of individuals practicing critical inquiry and writing books or performing publicly against particular frauds and popular superstitions, including people like Lucian of Samosata (2nd century), Michel de Montaigne (16th century), Thomas Ady and Thomas Browne (17th century), Antoine Lavoisier and Benjamin Franklin (18th century), many different philosophers, scientists and magicians throughout the 19th and early 20th century up until and after Harry Houdini. However, skeptics banding together in societies that research the paranormal and fringe science is a modern phenomenon.[57]

Daniel Loxton mentions the Belgian Comité Para (1949) as the oldest “broad mandate” skeptical organization.[57] Although it was preceded by the Dutch Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij (VtdK) (1881), which is therefore considered the oldest skeptical organization by others,[59][60] the VtdK only focuses on fighting quackery, and thus has a ‘narrow mandate’. The Comité Para was partly formed as a response to a predatory industry of bogus psychics who were exploiting the grieving relatives of people who had gone missing during the Second World War.[57] In contrast, Michael Shermer traces the origins of the modern scientific skeptical movement to Martin Gardner’s 1952 book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.[61]

In 1968, the French Association for Scientific Information (AFIS) was founded. AFIS strives to promote science against those who deny its cultural value, abuse it for criminal purposes or as a cover for quackery. According to AFIS, science itself cannot solve humanity’s problems, nor can one solve them without using the scientific method. It maintains that people should be informed about scientific and technical advancements and the problems it helps to solve. Its magazine, Science et pseudo-sciences, attempts to distribute scientific information in a language that everyone can understand.[62]

CSICOP and contemporary skepticism

In 1976, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), known as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) since November 2006, was founded in the United States. Some see this as the “birth of modern skepticism”,[63] however, founder Paul Kurtz actually modeled it after the Comité Para, including its name.[57] Kurtz’ motive was being “dismayed … by the rising tide of belief in the paranormal and the lack of adequate scientific examinations of these claims.”[64]

Kurtz was an atheist and had also founded the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. While he saw both aspects as being covered in the skeptical movement, he had recommended CSICOP to focus on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims and to leave religious aspects to others.[65] Despite not being the oldest, CSICOP was “the first successful, broad-mandate North American skeptical organization of the contemporary period”,[66] popularized the usage of the terms “skeptic”, “skeptical” and “skepticism” by its magazine, Skeptical Inquirer,[67] and directly inspired the foundation of many other skeptical organizations throughout the world, especially in Europe.[68]

These included Australian Skeptics (1980), Vetenskap och Folkbildning (Sweden, 1982), New Zealand Skeptics (1986), GWUP (Austria, Germany and Switzerland, 1987), Skepsis r.y.(Finland, 1987), Stichting Skepsis (Netherlands, 1987), CICAP (Italy, 1989) and SKEPP (Dutch-speaking Belgium, 1990).

Besides scientists such as astronomers, stage magicians like James Randi were important in investigating charlatans and exposing their trickery. In 1996 Randi formed the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) and created the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, where anyone who could demonstrate paranormal abilities, under mutually agreed-upon controlled circumstances, could claim the prize. After Randi’s retirement in 2015, the Paranormal Challenge was officially terminated by the JREF with the prize unclaimed:

Effective 9/1/2015 the JREF has made major changes including converting to a grant making foundation and no longer accepting applications for the Million Dollar Prize from the general public.[69]

Other influential second-generation American organizations were The Skeptics Society (founded in 1992 by Michael Shermer), the New England Skeptical Society (originating in 1996) and the Independent Investigations Group (formed in 2000 by James Underdown).

After 1989

After the Revolutions of 1989, Eastern Europe saw a surge in quackery and paranormal beliefs that were no longer restrained by the generally secular Communist regimes or the Iron curtain and its information barriers. The foundation of many new skeptical organizations was as well intending to protect consumers.[70] These included the Czech Skeptics’ Club Sisyfos (1995),[71] the Hungarian Skeptic Society (2006), the Polish Sceptics Club (2010)[72] and the Russian-speaking Skeptic Society (2013).[73] The Austrian Skeptical Society in Vienna (founded in 2002) deals with issues such as Johann Grander’s “vitalized water” and the use of dowsing at the Austrian Parliament.[74]

The European Skeptics Congress (ESC) has been held throughout Europe since 1989, from 1994 onwards co-ordinated by the European Council of Skeptical Organizations.[75] In the United States, The Amaz!ng Meeting (TAM) hosted by the JREF in Las Vegas had been the most important skeptical conference since 2003, with two spin-off conferences in London, UK (2009 and 2010) and one in Sydney, Australia (2010). Since 2010, the Merseyside Skeptics Society and Greater Manchester Skeptics jointly organized Question, Explore, Discover (QED) in Manchester, UK. World Skeptics Congresses have been held so far, namely in Buffalo, New York (1996), Heidelberg, Germany (1998), Sydney, Australia (2000), Burbank, California (2002), Abano Terme, Italy (2004) and Berlin, Germany (2012).[75][76]

In 1991, the Center for Inquiry, a US think-tank, brought the CSICOP[77] and the Council for Secular Humanism[78] (CSH) under one umbrella. In January 2016, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science announced its merger with the Center for Inquiry.[79]

Notable skeptical projects

Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

Susan Gerbic of GSoW and four other CSI fellows in 2018: (left to right: Kendrick Frazier, Ben Radford, Mark Boslough, and Dave Thomas)

In 2010, as a form of skeptical outreach to the general population, Susan Gerbic launched the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW) project to improve skeptical content on Wikipedia.[80] In 2017, Gerbic (who was made a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry in 2018)[81] and her GSoW team received an award from the James Randi Educational Foundation which “is given to the person or organization that best represents the spirit of the foundation by encouraging critical questions and seeking unbiased, fact-based answers. We are pleased to recognize Susan’s efforts to enlist and train a team of editors who continually improve Wikipedia as a public resource for rationality and scientific thought.”[82]

In July 2018, Wired reported that the GSoW team had grown to more than 120 volunteer editors from around the world, and they were collectively responsible for creating or improving some of Wikipedia’s most heavily trafficked articles on skeptical topics. As of July 2018, GSoW had created or completely rewritten more than 630 Wikipedia articles in many languages, which together have accumulated over 28 million page visits.[83]


  1. “Scientific Skepticism, Rationalism, and Secularism – NeuroLogica Blog”theness.comArchived from the original on 10 September 2017. Retrieved 7 May 2018.
  2. Stemwedel, Janet D. (2008-01-29), “Basic concepts: the norms of science”(blog)ScienceBlogs: Adventures in Ethics and ScienceScienceBlogsarchived from the original on 2013-05-12: quoting Merton, R. K. (1942)
  3. Frazier, Kendrick (1 November 2013). “Why We Do This: Revisiting the Higher Values of Skeptical Inquiry” Archived from the original on 10 June 2017. Retrieved 12 November 2018.
  4. Asbjørn Dyrendal: “Oh no it isn’t!” Skeptics and the Rhetorical Use of Science in Religion. in Olav Hammer & James R. Lewis (red.) Handbook ofReligion and the Authority of Science. pp. 879–900. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers 2010, Dyrendal refers to spiritualists as early targets of skeptics based on Hammer 2007.
  5. Loxton, 2013, pp. 10ff.
  6. Jump up to:abcdef Kemp, Daren; Lewis, James R. (2007-01-01). Handbook of New Age. BRILL. pp. 382, 390, 395–96. ISBN9004153551.
  7. Kurtz, Paul (1992). The New Skepticism: Inquiry and Reliable KnowledgePrometheus. p. 371. ISBN0-87975-766-3.
  8. Merton, R. K. (1942). The Normative Structure of Science. in Merton, Robert King (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago PressISBN978-0-226-52091-9.
  9. Sagan, Carl“Carl Sagan > Quotes > Quotable Quote”Goodreads.comArchived from the original on 30 August 2017. Retrieved 30 August 2017.
  10. Loxton, Daniel“Why Is There a Skeptical Movement?”(PDF)Skeptic.comArchived(PDF) from the original on 29 November 2016. Retrieved 24 October 2016.
  11. “Skepticblog”skepticblog.orgArchived from the original on 2014-04-25.
  12. “About Us – A Brief Introduction”. The Skeptics Society. Archived from the original on 2014-06-01.
  13. “Skeptoid”
  14. Loxton, pp. 29 ff “Modern Skepticism’s Unique Mandate”
  15. “About the Swedish Skeptics Association”Vetenskap och FolkbildningArchived from the original on 13 November 2016. Retrieved 14 November2017.
  16. “About NYC Skeptics”NYC SkepticsArchived from the original on 15 November 2017. Retrieved 14 November 2017.
  17. Novella, Steven (10 August 2015). “Rethinking the Skeptical Movement”Neurologica. Archived from the original on 12 April 2016. Retrieved 8 August 2016.
  18. Clark, Josh. “How Occam’s Razor Works”How Stuff Works. Archived from the original on 29 July 2016. Retrieved 8 August 2016.
  19. Morgan, C.L. (1903). An Introduction to Comparative Psychology (2 ed.). London: W. Scott. p. 59.
  20. Wudka, Jose (1998). “What is the scientific method?”. Archived from the original on 2007-06-01. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
  21. Lindsay, Ronald A. (2017). “Why Skepticism?: Sasquatch, Broken Windows, and Public Policy”Skeptical Inquirer41 (2): 46–50. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 4 November 2018.
  22. Hess, David J. (1993-01-01). Science in the New Age: The Paranormal, Its Defenders and Debunkers, and American Culture. Univ of Wisconsin Press. ISBN9780299138202.
  23. Rinallo, Diego; Scott, Linda M.; Maclaran, Pauline (2013-01-01). Consumption and Spirituality. Routledge. ISBN9780415889117.
  24. Watson, Rebecca (24 October 2012). “It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too”SlateArchived from the original on 24 April 2016.
  25. Reagle, Joseph M. (2015-04-24). Reading the Comments: Likers, Haters, and Manipulators at the Bottom of the Web. MIT Press. pp. 114–17. ISBN9780262028936.
  26. Mandy De Waal. “Dawkins, Watson and the elevator ride”.Archived2011-09-08 at the Wayback MachineMail & Guardian, 9/2/2011.
  27. “Debunker” UnabridgedArchived from the original on 2007-08-21. Retrieved 2007-09-26. “to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans.”
  28. Gardner, Martin (1957). Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Dover. ISBN0-486-20394-8.
  29. “Skeptics Dictionary Alphabetical Index Abracadabra to Zombies”. 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-05-28. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
  30. Nickell, JoeSkeptical inquiry vs debunkingarchived from the original on 2016-03-24
  31. Hansen, George P. (1992). “CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview”Archived from the original on 2010-05-10. Retrieved 2010-05-25.
  32. Frazier, Kendrick (2018). “In Troubled Times, This Is What We Do”Skeptical Inquirer42 (2): 14–15. Archived from the original on 2018-06-06. Retrieved 7 June 2018.
  33. Bakker, Gary. “Why Do People Believe in Gods?”CSICOP. Center for Inquiry. Archived from the original on 19 October 2015. Retrieved 4 October2015.
  34. Hess, David J. (1993-01-01). Science in the New Age: The Paranormal, Its Defenders and Debunkers, and American Culture. Univ of Wisconsin Press. pp. 63–64. ISBN9780299138202.
  35. Allegory of the cave, Plato The Republic, (New CUP translation by Tom Griffith and G.R.F. Ferrari into English) ISBN0-521-48443-X
  36. Russell, Bertrand (1928). “On the Value of Scepticism”The Will To Doubt. Positive Atheism. Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
  37. Fighting Against FlimflamArchived 2012-11-02 at the Wayback MachineTIME, Jun. 24, 2001
  38. “Cancer patients who use alternative medicine more than twice as likely to die”The IndependentArchived from the original on 19 February 2018. Retrieved 18 February 2018.
  39. Srivastava, Ranjana. “What do doctors say to ‘alternative therapists’ when a patient dies? Nothing. We never talk”The GuardianArchived from the original on 19 February 2018. Retrieved 18 February 2018.
  40. Farley, Tim“counter”What’s The Harm?Archived from the original on 19 December 2017. Retrieved 18 February 2018.
  41. Richard DawkinsThe God Delusion, Black Swan, 2007 (ISBN978-0-552-77429-1).
  42. Better living without God? – Religion is a dangerously irrational mirage, says DawkinsArchived 2012-05-25 at the Wayback MachineSan Francisco Chronicle, October 15, 2006
  43. Langone, Michael D. (June 1995). Recovery from Cults: Help for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse. W. Norton. American Family Foundation. p. 432. ISBN0-393-31321-2.
  44. “Igwe, Leo – Junior Fellow”Bayreuth International Graduate School of African StudiesArchived from the original on 2013-05-25.
  45. Hill, Sharon A.“Leo Igwe partners with JREF to respond to witchcraft problem in Africa”Doubtful NewsArchived from the original on 2013-03-15. Retrieved 2013-02-17.
  46. “Leo Igwe Appointed as New JREF Research Fellow”James Randi Educational Foundation. Retrieved 2013-02-16.
  47. Igwe, Leo“A Manifesto for a Skeptical Africa”James Randi Educational FoundationArchived from the original on 2013-05-25. Retrieved 2013-02-17.
  48. De Waal, Mandy (April 10, 2012). “Suffer the little children”Mail & GuardianArchived from the original on June 14, 2012. Retrieved 2013-02-14.
  49. Robbins, Martin (August 7, 2009). “Face to faith: Christian and Islamist extremists in Nigeria are exporting dangerous ideas”The GuardianISSN0261-3077Archived from the original on September 7, 2013.
  50. Sarma, Amardeo (2018) [Originally published online 6 March 2018]. “Skepticism Reloaded”Skeptical Inquirer42 (4): 40–43. Archived from the original on 2018-07-04. Retrieved 4 July 2018.
  51. Wilson, Richard (2008-09-18), “Against the Evidence”New Statesman, Progressive Media International, ISSN1364-7431archived from the original on 2014-10-16
  52. Wilson, Richard C. (2008). Don’t get fooled again: the sceptic’s guide to life. Icon. ISBN978-1-84831-014-8.
  53. Kennedy, J. E. (2003). “The capricious, actively evasive, unsustainable nature of psi: A summary and hypotheses”. The Journal of Parapsychology67: 53–74.See Note 1 p. 64 quoting Blackmore, S. J. (1994). “Women skeptics”. In Coly, L.; White, R. Women and Parapsychology. New York: Parapsychology Foundation. pp. 234–36.
  54. “Skeptical Investigations”Association for Skeptical Investigation. Archived from the original on April 12, 2013. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
  55. “Internet Bunk”skepdic.comArchived from the original on 2010-07-26.
  56. Robert Todd Carroll “Internet Bunk: Skeptical InvestigationsArchived2010-07-26 at the Wayback Machine.” Skeptic’s Dictionary
  57. Daniel Loxton (2013). “Why Is There a Skeptical Movement?”(PDF)The Skeptics Society website. p. 3. Archived(PDF) from the original on 7 August 2014. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  58. Daniel Loxton, Why Is There a Skeptical Movement? 2013 p. 24, reference 91
  59. Andy Lewis (3 August 2009). “Dutch Sceptics Have ‘Bogus’ Libel Decision Overturned On Human Rights Grounds”. The Quackometer. Archived from the original on 13 February 2014. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  60. “Masseuse met kapsones” (in Dutch). De Standaard. 21 June 2007. Archived from the original on 14 January 2015. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  61. Michael Shermer (1997). “A Skeptical Manifesto”. The Skeptics Society website. Archived from the original on 26 June 2014. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  62. Jean-Pierre Thomas. “Notre histoire”Website AFIS (in French). AFIS. Archived from the original on 6 July 2014. Retrieved 3 April 2015.
  63. Loxton (2013), p. 29.
  64. Loxton (2013), p. 32.
  65. Nisbet, Matthew (16 August 2010). “Paul Kurtz on the “Strategic Blunder” of the New Atheists”www.bigthink.comArchived from the original on 2018-03-19. Retrieved 12 November 2018.
  66. Loxton (2013), p. 2.
  67. Boel, Herman (2003). “Wat is het verschil tussen Skepticisme en Scepticisme?”Wonder en is gheen wonder (in Dutch). SKEPP3 (1). Archived from the original on 17 May 2014. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  68. Frazier, Kendrick (1996). The Encyclopedia of the ParanormalAmherst, New York. pp. 168–80. Archived from the original on 15 June 2014. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  69. “JREF Status, 9-1-2015” JREF. Archived from the original on 30 August 2017. Retrieved 30 August 2017.
  70. Mahner, Martin (January–February 2002). “10th European Skeptics Congress: Rise and Development of Paranormal Beliefs in Eastern Europe”Skeptical InquirerCSICOP26 (1). Archived from the original on 28 May 2014. Retrieved 23 May 2014.
  71. “Czech Skeptical Club SISYFOS”. Sisyfos website. 27 May 2006. Archived from the original on 25 June 2014. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  72. Tomasz Witkowski & Maciej Zatonski (18 November 2011). “The Inception of the Polish Sceptics Club”. CSI website. Archived from the original on 28 May 2014. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  73. Richard Saunders. “Episode 338”The Skeptic Zone. Archived from the original on 4 October 2015. Retrieved 1 July 2015.
  74. Müller, Stefan (2012-05-03). “Skeptikerbewegung: Die Apokalypse in den Köpfen”Die ZeitISSN0044-2070Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-09-16.
  75. “Earlier European skeptic events”. HSS website. Archived from the original on 27 May 2014. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  76. James Alcock (25 May 2012). “World Skeptics Congress 2012: A Brief History of the Skeptical Movement”. YouTube. Archived from the original on 18 July 2015. Retrieved 3 June 2014.
  77. Smith, Cameron M. “CSI”. Archived from the original on 2011-02-23. Retrieved 2014-03-01.
  78. “Council for Secular Humanism”. Archived from the original on 2011-02-24. Retrieved 2014-03-01.
  79. “Merger creates largest atheist organization”. WBFO. Archived from the original on 2016-01-24. Retrieved 2016-01-24.
  80. Gerbic, Susan (March 8, 2015). “Wikapediatrician Susan Gerbic discusses her Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project”Skeptical InquirerCommittee for Skeptical InquiryArchived from the original on August 30, 2015. Retrieved January 13, 2015.
  81. “Center for Inquiry News: Cause & Effect: The CFI Newsletter – No. 99”www.centerforinquiry.netArchived from the original on 8 February 2018. Retrieved 2018-02-07.
  82. “2017 JREF Award”James Randi Educational FoundationArchivedfrom the original on March 28, 2018. Retrieved March 27, 2018.
  83. Matsakis, Louise (July 25, 2018). “The ‘Guerrilla’ Wikipedia Editors Who Combat Conspiracy Theories”wired.comWired. Retrieved July 25, 2018.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia