In those areas which are amenable to good objective testing, the journal does seem to perform a useful purpose. When appropriate tests can be applied to questions raised, useful information can come forth. Within these limitations the journal is highly commendable. It is probably to be expected that many should feel a degree of comfort within a naturalistic system of thought, since this provides relatively easy and more tangible explanations. While these factors give support to naturalism, ease of testing and simplicity are not necessarily good criteria for truth.
Reality is usually more complex than our simple minds envision.
The many unexplainables that face us indicate that this is the case. The journal has not been successful in convincing this reviewer that it is fair in its skepticism about various ideas. In this respect its impact may be more to bolster the faith of the believer in naturalism than to convince a skeptic that here we have an objective evaluation of reality. It seems significant that The Skeptical Inquirer is not all that skeptical about the propriety of the American Anthropological Association as a spokesman for all of evolution. Physical anthropology with its frequently changing concepts of the assumed pattern of human evolution is prime turf for skepticism.