I didn’t grow up in a very religious home.  My parents allowed me to make my own decision about religion.  I went to bible school a few times when I was a child during summer.  I even attended a Christian private school from pre-school to 1st grade.  My only recollection of that experience is that the staff was scary and that I had to memorize verses every week.  How that relates to a good education, I still have no idea.  My parents, thankfully, figured this out quickly and put me into public school, where I really learned a lot and could grow up to be a well-rounded, healthy person.

Religion is such a sensitive subject, I even thought twice about whether I wanted to write anything on the net that talks about religion, and my views of it. I know there are friends that I have that are very religious, that may read this.  Generally, I just avoid that subject with them, because most of the time, I have no desire to discuss or quarrel with them on my religious views. My friendship is more important that one aspect of their lives not aligning with mine.

I worry that if I do not share their religious sentiment, that they will think less of me, or they won’t patronize my business. But it’s time to set those feelings aside.  I am a good, moral person… More than a lot of Christians that I know, actually. I don’t get to hide behind religion or sins.  I have to be a good person because I want to be, and that the way I feel a moral citizen should act. I don’t worry what God might think, but rather what would my Mom and Dad think. That’s got more real-life implications. 

For some reason, however, Christmas brings out the need for those so inclined religiously to really reach out to everyone and make sure that they are saved, or that we  all know the “real reason for the season”  (To get the retail businesses into the black for the year right??)

I don’t mind the pageantry of Christmas. I love the holiday, and I have no problem with churches extending their arms to find new sheep for their flock.  As long as my views are respected and the fact that I don’t attend church regularly doesn’t make me a lesser person in their eyes, I’m perfectly fine.  To me the symbolism of religion in Christmas is very much like the symbolism of Santa Claus. They’re both icons representing nice stories that, during this time of year, many people like to feel a part of so that they can push the stress and fear of the rest of the year aside for a moment and feel like there’s something bigger, and more important to think about.

To me Christmas isn’t real until I go over to my parents house and see all the decorations that adorn every corner of the place. Everything is sparkling, and colorful, and then, I feel the magic of the holiday. Who knew that such strong emotions could be stored in 35 boxes in their attic most the year.

When Christmas Eve comes, many of my relatives come there and we all sit around the table talking about our year, what’s going on and have a great time and good food. We miss our departed relatives, and talk about holidays past.  There’s no prayer, no discussion about a story from centuries ago, just family, sharing a meal, good conversation, the emotions and love that can be found just as much at our house as the pastor’s house down the street.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Rather than fight history, inertia, and etymology most of us have just decided to embrace it and make the best out of it. Michael took the plunge with the Skeptic Society, I signed on with the New England Skeptical Society, then the Skeptics’ Guide. Brian came to acceptance with Skeptoid. (Of course, the Skeptical Inquirer blazed the trail for all of us.)

And then, of course, Ryan and Brian chose the name The Skeptologists for the first skeptical reality TV show (hopefully).

Rather than deny our inner skeptics, we decided to alter the public perception of “skeptics.” I think, to a limited degree, we have seen some success with this strategy. For now, I think it is the best approach. Although we aren’t putting all our eggs in the skeptical basket either. Phil (the Bad Astronomer) has built the “bad” brand very well, and has been copied by Bad Science and others. I guess “bad” can be good. Others focus on “science” or “education”.  But nothing really captures everything we do and promote in a single word like “skeptic.” So I predict that we are stuck with it, at least for now.

I am often asked, therefore, what the definition of “skeptic” is in the context of the modern skeptical movement. Before I attempt a concise definition, indulge me in a bit of background.

The word skeptic derives from Greek. Its original meaning was inquiry and doubt – which is actually a good first approximation of a definition. Later, philosophers used the word to mean philosophical doubt – the notion that all pretense to knowledge is mere hubris. In other words, we know nothing and can know nothing.

In contemporary vernacular, skeptic generally means someone who questions conventional wisdom, or someone who habitually or excessively doubts. It is often used as a pejorative to mean closed-minded. This is the baggage that the modern term “skeptic” must deal with, and it is about as far away as you can get from skepticism as defined by those who actually call themselves skeptics.

The modern skeptical movement has used the self-label of “skeptic” for decades to refer to what Carl Sagan called “scientific skepticism,” to distinguish it from philosophical skepticism or mere cynicism.

So here is my attempt at a reasonably concise definition of skeptic and skepticism – the brand of scientific skepticism we advocate as activist skeptics.

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.

Not bad for a single paragraph definition. Of course books have, will, and should be written plumbing the depths of skepticism and what it means to be a skeptic – but any well-formed idea should be able to be expressed briefly.

I would also like to see skepticism develop more fully into a full-fledged legitimate intellectual discipline. I think it already is, it just has not reached mainstream institutionalization yet. As a discipline, skepticism includes knowledge of science, scientific methodology, the philosophy of science or epistemology, and the demarcation between science and pseudoscience. In addition it includes knowledge of neuroscience and psychology as it applies to belief, memory, perception, self-deception, and other-deception. This last bit also overlaps with mentalism and other forms of magic and illusion. Skepticism incorporates logic and knowledge of logical fallacies, heuristics, and all pitfalls of reason. And finally it puts this knowledge to work in order to improve the public understanding of science and general critical thinking, which involves being a watchdog on the mass media and its treatment of scientific, paranormal, and fringe claims.

When you think about it, being a well-rounded skeptic is quite a task. It is the modern version of being a renaissance man or woman

In short skepticism is an intellectual specialty that is grounded in science and the humanities and includes any knowledge that deals with the nature of knowledge and belief, critical thinking, the foibles of the human intellect, and deception.  My hope is for skepticism to evolve into a legitimate academic discipline.

Meanwhile we’ll continue to work to develop this discipline and to improve the public perception of it. We may be at a tipping point where skepticism is poised for broader public awareness, but it is honestly hard to tell. We’ll see.

The fate of The Skeptologists may very well be a bellwether.

From the GTS Kombucha website:

“In 1995, founder GT Dave’s mom, Laraine Dave, had been diagnosed with a rare form of breast cancer with a trajectory of illness known to move quickly to the lymph and bones. When she was diagnosed, doctors held out little hope for her given the aggressive type of cancer and its advanced stage. But to the surprise of everyone, her cancerous cells were found to be dormant with no metastasis. Her physicians were baffled and asked what she was doing that others in her situation were perhaps not doing. The only thing she could think of was that she had been drinking homemade Kombucha every day for the last couple of years.”

Anecdotal evidence is never convincing to a skeptic, so I’ve remained skeptical about Kombucha’s health providing properties even though several of them profess its wonders.

First, what is Kombucha? It is a fermented, sweetened tea (either black or green is normally used) containing what’s technically known as a zoogleal mat of various symbiotic bacteria and yeast species. I prefer to call the mat “the octopus” in reference to the way it attacks your face when drinking straight from the bottle. Most people refer to it simply as a “mushroom”.

Research has identified the bacteria as belonging to the genus Acetobacter, which oxidize sugars or alcohols metabolizing acetic acid as a bi-product. These bacteria are used widely in the food industry, especially in the production of vinegars from wines and spirits, and have been ingested by humans for hundreds of years. So, if not healthful, they certainly aren’t known to be widely harmful to humans.

The yeast are from several different genera, including but not limited to Brettanomyces bruxellensis, Candida stellata, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, Torulaspora delbrueckii and Zygosaccharomyces bailii. Several of these species are used in either the brewing of beer or the fermentation of wine. All told, the combinations of bacterial and yeast species should have little negative effect on a healthy individual, and in fact more and more research suggests that ingestion of so-called pro-biotics might actually be beneficial.

Ok, so Kombucha has been around a while. Since 250 BC or so. It was first used by the Chinese, and made its way into Russia in the 1800’s. Since then it has grown in popularity, mostly as a home-brewed concoction. However, more recently it has become a commercially distributed product, which has allowed it to reach a wider segment of the population.

Most of the health benefits of Kombucha are not clinically supported in humans, but rather anecdotal. There has been limited conflicting research in mice and rats. While the fermented tea seems to have antioxidant and immunomodulatory activity in rats (likely due to the polyphenols present in the tea used to create the Kombucha), it has also been shown to increase the size of both the liver and spleen in mice. Significantly, the home-brewed variety has been linked with several health issues in people, ranging from bacterial infections to liver damage and to death. That said, Kombucha sold commercially is probably safer than homemade. However, due to processing differences, commercial Kombucha isn’t likely to have as wide a variety of bacterial and/or yeast species making up its zooglea.

In conclusion, the research and evidence that is available to date is not sufficient for the medical community to endorse the consumption of Kombucha for health related purposes. Until the proper studies are done, Kombucha will simply remain an interesting drink with a serious cult following.

It has also fostered a collaboration among existing skeptics that simply did not exist before. Prior to Web 2.0 my skeptical activism was largely confined to a small local group, a print newsletter, and the very occasional national meeting. There were three national groups all doing their own thing, and about 60 local groups toiling away in relative isolation.

Now skepticism is a vibrant and growing international virtual community.

I am proud to announce the latest project to emerge out of this broader community — SkepticBlog. I am very excited to be a part of this new group blog, which is not the work of any individual but of a diverse group of dedicated activist skeptics.

The blog emerges out of another product of this born again (pardon the pun) skeptical community — a pilot reality TV show called The Skeptologists. The show is the brainchild of Brian Dunning and Ryan Johnson, who continue to work tirelessly to make this show a reality. If they succeed — putting a no-nonsense, full-monty skeptical show on mainstream TV — it will be a major coup for skepticism, perhaps a game-changer.

Ryan Johnson, who will also be contributing to this blog, is the producer and director of The Skeptologists, and the originator of the idea. Co-producer, Brian Dunning, is already famous in skeptical circles for his excellent podcast, Skeptoid. He is also the host of The Skeptologists.

Brian and Ryan pulled together for the pilot a team of skeptics with diverse backgrounds, but all with a passion and ability to communicate skepticism to the public. I was honored to be asked to join that team, and am glad that I was able to squeeze the shooting of the pilot into my busy schedule (I almost didn’t, and that would have been an eternal regret). I continue to enjoy success with my podcast, The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe, and my existing blogs (NeuroLogica and Science-Based Medicine, as well as contributing to The Rogues Gallery) — but a tv show would be a jump in audience of at least 2 orders of magnitude.

Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, is already an established science blogger. He has built one of the most recognized brands in skepticism and blogging with his Bad Astronomy site (now hosted by Discover magazine). He is the author of two books, and recently was made president of the James Randi Educational Foundation. (He also has a tremendous singing voice.) As busy as he is (like the rest of us), he had to think carefully before agreeing to put anything new on his plate (or Plait, as the case may be), but eventually saw the potential in working on such a project as this blog and so enthusiastically jumped in.

Michael Shermer has already built the greatest name recognition as Mr. Skeptic. He is the founder of the Skeptic Society, publisher of Skeptic magazine, the author of numerous books, including the seminal Why People Believe Weird Things, a columnist for Scientific American, and has been the face of skepticism on hundreds of documentaries. Yet — he has never had a blog. His participation here will be his entry into the world of blogging. Anyone familiar with his crisp and accessible writing style will see that it will be a natural fit for him, and I think he will enjoy the open and intimate format that blogs offer.

Kirsten (Kiki) Sanford entered the world of skepticism with Web 2.0. She already hosts a popular science podcast, This Week in Science, and maintains an excellent personal blog, The Bird’s Brain. She has decided to dedicate her career to improving the public understanding of science — something for which she had already demonstrated considerable talent.

Mark Edward could be the template for the lead character in the new CBS show, the Mentalist. He used to work for the “other side” as a stage psychic, but came over to the side of light and now uses his mentalism skills to expose fakery and deception. He provides a unique insider’s perspective into the world of fraud that the rest of us lack.

As popular as some of us may be within the subculture of skepticism, our combined fame pales in comparison to the international celebrity of Yau-Man Chan. He came to fame as one of the most popular contestants on Survivor, and became a geek-icon by literally using brain consistently to beat brawn. It turns out Yau-Man is also a dedicated skeptic. He sought out Brian to join The Skeptologists team, and now joins us on this blog.

The SkepticBlog, however, is more than just a way to promote The Skeptologists. It is a serious group skeptically-themed science blog, and represents a collaboration across many of the biggest institutions of organized skepticism. From the outset we will post daily blog entries, and hope to build this site into an important hub of skeptical activity online.

We also plan to invite guest submissions, and may even regular contributions, from others in the skeptical community.

This blog does not belong to any one person or group — it is a blog of the skeptical community.