Skeptical movement

For a general discussion of skepticism, see skepticism.

The skeptical movement (also spelled sceptical) is a modern social movement promoting the idea of scientific skepticism (also called rational skepticism). Scientific skepticism is 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 if 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.

Roots of the movement can be found in the 19th century when questions began to be publicly raised regarding the unquestioned acceptance of claims of spiritism, various widely held superstitions, and pseudoscience.[3][4] Medical quackery was also targeted by publications such as the Dutch Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij (1881).

The Belgian Comité Para (1949) has been deemed the oldest "broad mandate" skeptical organization. Using that organization as a template, in 1976, Paul Kurtz and Marcello Truzzi founded the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry in Amherst, New York. The North American skeptical organization, which provides journals and publications, inspired similar associations worldwide.[5]

Scientific skepticism

Scientific skepticism is different from philosophical skepticism, which questions our ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how we 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.[6] 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).[7]

An important difference to classical skepticism is, according religious history professor Olav Hammer, 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."[5]

The following are definitions related to scientific skepticism:

"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."
"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."
"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."

With regard to the skeptical social movement, Loxton refers to other movements already promoting "humanism, atheism, rationalism, science education and even critical thinking" before.[11] 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 in so far 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.[11]

However, skeptical organizations do typically tend to have science education and promotion among their goals.[12] [13]


Scientific skeptics maintain that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose.[14] 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.[14] From a scientific point of view, theories are judged on many criteria, such as falsifiability,[14] Occam's Razor,[15] Morgan's Canon[16] and explanatory power, as well as the degree to which their predictions match experimental results.[14] 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.[17]

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.[18]:109 Some leaders of the movement, including Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett were connected to New Atheism.[19]:57 An important difference is the one between "wet" and "dry" sceptics, primarliy based on the level of engagement with those promoting claims that appear to be pseudoscience; the dry skeptics preferring to debunk and ridicule to avoid giving attention and thus credence to the promoters, and the "wet" skeptics preferring more slow and considered engagement, to avoid appearing sloppy and ill-considered and thus similar to the groups all skeptics opposed.[5]:389 Truzzi was a wet sceptic.[5]:389

The movement has had issues with sexism. It was raised in a 1985 skeptic newsletter by Mary Coulman.[18]:112 Following a 2011 conference, Rebecca Watson, a prominent skeptic,[19]: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 was mocked by Dawkins and became a target of virulent online harassment from other skeptics, which included rape threats. 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.[20][21]

Debunking and rational inquiry

See also: Debunking

The term "debunk" is used to describe afforts 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.[22]

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.[23][24]

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.[25][26]

A striking characteristic of the skeptical movement is the fact that while most of the phenomena covered, e.g. astrology or homeopathy, have been debunked again and again, they stay popular.[5] According Hammer, a significant segment of Swedish skeptics describe their opponents more as a sign of a moral crisis than an actual problem.[5]

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.[27] 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 allows to explain the actual activities of astrologers and their clients, the skeptical movement's interest in the cultural aspects of such practices is muted.[5]

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.[28] 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.[28]

Perceived dangers of pseudoscience

While skeptics perceive most topics as being fringe and less of an actual problem, some aspects and topics are being perceived as a possible danger.[5] As well, the Ancient Greek philosopher Plato believed that to release others from ignorance despite their initial resistance is a great and noble thing as such.[29] Modern skeptical writers address this question in a variety of ways. Bertrand Russell argued that individual actions are based upon the beliefs of the person acting, and if the beliefs are unsupported by evidence, then such beliefs can lead to destructive actions.[30] James Randi also often writes on the issue of fraud by psychics and faith healers.[31] Critics of alternative medicine often point to bad advice given by unqualified practitioners, leading to serious injury or death. Richard Dawkins points to religion as a source of violence (notably in The God Delusion), and considers creationism a threat to biology.[32][33] 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.[34]

Leo Igwe, Junior Fellow at the Bayreuth International Graduate School of African Studies[35] and past Research Fellow of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF),[36][37] wrote A Manifesto for a Skeptical Africa,[38] which received endorsements from multiple public activists in Africa, as well as skeptical endorsers around the world.[38] He is an 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.[39][40]


Main article: Pseudoskepticism

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.[41] 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".[42]

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 ..."[43]

Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation"[44] puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Bob Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary[45] 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."[46]


Historical roots

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.[47] He is of opinion, that the practice, problems, and central concepts extend all the way to antiquity and refers to a debunking tale in told in some versions of the Old Testament, where the Prophet Daniel exposes a tale of a "living" statue as a scam.[48] According him, 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.[47]

First modern skeptical organizations

Loxton mentions the Belgian Comité Para (1949) as the oldest "broad mandate" skeptical organization.[47] Although it was preceded by the Dutch Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij (VtdK) (1881), which is therefore considered the oldest skeptical organization by others,[49][50] 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.[47] 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.[51]

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. Citizens should be informed about scientific and technical advancements and the problems it helps to solve. Its magazine, Science et pseudo-sciences attempts as well to distribute scientific information in a language that everyone can understand.[52] It is insofar closer to classical associations for the popularization of science. E.g. the German Franck-Kosmos in Stuttgart was founded 1904 as Society of the friends of nature. The name refers as well to Alexander von Humboldts Kosmos and his popular lectures for the general public. The influential Berlin (1904) and Eastern German (1954) and Austrian Urania society started both as a public astronomic observatory and information hubs spreading scientific knowledge. Astronomers later often stood at the cradle of skeptical organizations,[53]

CSICOP and contemporary skepticism

Influential North American skeptics: Ray Hyman, Paul Kurtz, James Randi and Kendrick Frazier

Although most skeptics in the English-speaking world see the 1976 formation of CSICOP in the United States as the "birth of modern skepticism",[54] founder Paul Kurtz actually modeled it after the Comité Para, including its name.[47] Kurtz' motive was being 'dismayed ... by the rising tide of belief in the paranormal and the lack of adequate scientific examinations of these claims.'[55] Kurtz himself was an atheist and had founded e.g. a separate 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. Despite not being the oldest, CSICOP was 'the first successful, broad-mandate North American skeptical organization of the contemporary period',[56] popularized the usage of the terms 'skeptic', 'skeptical' and 'skepticism' by its magazine, Skeptical Inquirer,[57] and directly inspired the foundation of many other skeptical organizations throughout the world, especially in Europe.[58]

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, e.g. Astronomers, stage magicians like James Randi, who formed his own James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) in 1996, were important in exposing charlatans, popularizing their trickery. Randy invited anyone to demonstrate their claims were real with the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. 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.[59] These included the Czech Skeptics' Club Sisyfos (1995),[60] the Hungarian Skeptic Society (2006), the Polish Sceptics Club (2010)[61] and the Russian-speaking Skeptic Society (2013).[62] The Austrian skeptical society in Vienna (founded in 2002) deals e.g. with Johann Granders vitalized water or the use of dowsing at the Austrian Parliament.[63]

The European Skeptics Congress (ESC) has been held throughout Europe since 1989, from 1994 onwards co-ordinated by the European Council of Skeptical Organizations.[64] 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).[64][65]

In 1991, the Center for Inquiry, a US think-tank, brought the CSICOP[66] and the Council for Secular Humanism[67] (CSH) under one umbrella.In January 2016, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science announced its merger with the Center for Inquiry.[68]

Notable skeptical media

See also


  2. Stemwedel, Janet D. (2008-01-29), "Basic concepts: the norms of science" (blog), ScienceBlogs: Adventures in Ethics and Science, ScienceBlogs: quoting Merton, R. K. (1942)
  3. Asbjørn Dyrendal: "Oh no it isn't!" Skeptics and the Rhetorical Use of Science in Religion. in Olav Hammer & James R. Lewis (red.) Handbook of Religion 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
  4. Loxton, 2013, p.10ff
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Kemp, Daren; Lewis, James R. (2007-01-01). Handbook of New Age. BRILL. pp. 382, 390, 395–396. ISBN 9004153551.
  6. Kurtz, Paul (1992). The New Skepticism: Inquiry and Reliable Knowledge. Prometheus. p. 371. ISBN 0-87975-766-3.
  7. 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 Press. ISBN 978-0-226-52091-9.
  8. Loxton, Daniel. "Why Is There a Skeptical Movement?" (PDF). Retrieved 24 October 2016.
  9. "Skepticblog".
  10. "About Us - A Brief Introduction". The Skeptics Society.
  11. 1 2 Loxton, p.29 ff "Modern Skepticism's Unique Mandate"
  14. 1 2 3 4 Novella, Steven (10 August 2015). "Rethinking the Skeptical Movement". Neurologica. Archived from the original on 12 April 2016. Retrieved 8 August 2016.
  15. Clark, Josh. "How Occam's Razor Works". How Stuff Works. Archived from the original on 29 July 2016. Retrieved 8 August 2016.
  16. Morgan, C.L. (1903). An Introduction to Comparative Psychology (2 ed.). W. Scott: London. p. 59.
  17. Wudka, Jose (1998). "What is the scientific method?". Retrieved 2007-05-27.
  18. 1 2 Hess, David J. (1993-01-01). Science in the New Age: The Paranormal, Its Defenders and Debunkers, and American Culture. Univ of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 9780299138202.
  19. 1 2 Rinallo, Diego; Scott, Linda M.; Maclaran, Pauline (2013-01-01). Consumption and Spirituality. Routledge. ISBN 9780415889117.
  20. Watson, Rebecca (24 October 2012). "It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too". Slate.
  21. Reagle, Joseph M. (2015-04-24). Reading the Comments: Likers, Haters, and Manipulators at the Bottom of the Web. MIT Press. pp. 114–117. ISBN 9780262028936.
  22. "Debunker". Unabridged. Retrieved 2007-09-26. "to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans."
  23. Gardner, Martin (1957). Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Dover. ISBN 0-486-20394-8.
  24. "Skeptics Dictionary Alphabetical Index Abracadabra to Zombies". 2007. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
  25. Nickell, Joe, Skeptical inquiry vs debunking
  26. Hansen, George P. (1992). "CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview". Retrieved 2010-05-25.
  27. Bakker, Gary. "Why Do People Believe in Gods?". CSICOP. Center for Inquiry. Retrieved 4 October 2015.
  28. 1 2 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. ISBN 9780299138202.
  29. Allegory of the cave, Plato The Republic, (New CUP translation by Tom Griffith and G.R.F. Ferrari into English) ISBN 0-521-48443-X
  30. Russell, Bertrand (1928). "On the Value of Scepticism". The Will To Doubt. Positive Atheism. Retrieved 2007-05-27.
  31. Fighting Against Flimflam, TIME, Jun. 24, 2001
  32. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Black Swan, 2007 (ISBN 978-0-552-77429-1).
  33. Better living without God? - Religion is a dangerously irrational mirage, says Dawkins, San Francisco Chronicle, October 15, 2006
  34. Langone, Michael D. (June 1995). Recovery from Cults: Help for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse. W. Norton. American Family Foundation. p. 432. ISBN 0-393-31321-2.
  35. "Igwe, Leo - Junior Fellow". Bayreuth International Graduate School of African Studies.
  36. Hill, Sharon A. "Leo Igwe partners with JREF to respond to witchcraft problem in Africa". Doubtful News. Retrieved 2013-02-17.
  37. "Leo Igwe Appointed as New JREF Research Fellow". James Randi Educational Foundation. Retrieved 2013-02-16.
  38. 1 2 Igwe, Leo. "A Manifesto for a Skeptical Africa". James Randi Educational Foundation. Retrieved 2013-02-17.
  39. De Waal, Mandy (April 10, 2012). "Suffer the little children". Mail & Guardian. Retrieved 2013-02-14.
  40. Robbins, Martin (August 7, 2009). "Face to faith: Christian and Islamist extremists in Nigeria are exporting dangerous ideas". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077.
  41. Wilson, Richard (2008-09-18), "Against the Evidence", New Statesman, Progressive Media International, ISSN 1364-7431
  42. Wilson, Richard C. (2008). Don't get fooled again: the sceptic's guide to life. Icon. ISBN 978-1-84831-014-8.
  43. Kennedy, J. E. (2003). "The capricious, actively evasive, unsustainable nature of psi: A summary and hypotheses". The Journal of Parapsychology. 67: 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. 234–236.
  44. "Skeptical Investigations". Association for Skeptical Investigation. Archived from the original on April 12, 2013. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
  45. "Internet Bunk".
  46. Robert Todd Carroll "Internet Bunk: Skeptical Investigations." Skeptic's Dictionary
  47. 1 2 3 4 5 Daniel Loxton (2013). "Why Is There a Skeptical Movement?" (PDF). The Skeptics Society website. p. 3. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  48. Daniel Loxton, Why Is There a Skeptical Movement?2013 p.24, reference 91
  49. Andy Lewis (3 August 2009). "Dutch Sceptics Have 'Bogus' Libel Decision Overturned On Human Rights Grounds". The Quackometer. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  50. "Masseuse met kapsones" (in Dutch). De Standaard. 21 June 2007. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  51. Michael Shermer (1997). "A Skeptical Manifesto". The Skeptics Society website. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  52. Jean-Pierre Thomas. "Notre histoire". Website AFIS (in French). AFIS. Retrieved 3 April 2015.
  53. Tim Trachet (5 June 2010). "Twintig jaar SKEPP in 2010" (in Dutch). SKEPP. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  54. Loxton (2013), p.29.
  55. Loxton (2013), p.32.
  56. Loxton (2013), p.2.
  57. Boel, Herman (2003). "Wat is het verschil tussen Skepticisme en Scepticisme?". Wonder en is gheen wonder (in Dutch). SKEPP. 3 (1). Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  58. Frazier, Kendrick (1996). The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal. Amherst, New York. pp. 168–180. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  59. Mahner, Martin (January–February 2002). "10th European Skeptics Congress: Rise and Development of Paranormal Beliefs in Eastern Europe". Skeptical Inquirer. CSICOP. 26 (1). Retrieved 23 May 2014.
  60. "Czech Skeptical Club SISYFOS". Sisyfos website. 27 May 2006. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  61. Tomasz Witkowski & Maciej Zatonski (18 November 2011). "The Inception of the Polish Sceptics Club". CSI website. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  62. Richard Saunders. "Episode 338". The Skeptic Zone. Retrieved 1 July 2015.
  63. Müller, Stefan (2012-05-03). "Skeptikerbewegung: Die Apokalypse in den Köpfen". Die Zeit. ISSN 0044-2070. Retrieved 2016-09-16.
  64. 1 2 "Earlier European skeptic events". HSS website. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
  65. James Alcock (25 May 2012). "World Skeptics Congress 2012: A Brief History of the Skeptical Movement". YouTube. Retrieved 3 June 2014.
  66. Smith, Cameron M. "CSI". Retrieved 2014-03-01.
  67. "Council for Secular Humanism". Retrieved 2014-03-01.
  68. "Merger creates largest atheist organization". WBFO. Retrieved 2016-01-24.

Further reading

Wikiquote has quotations related to: Scientific skepticism
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/29/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.