"The real Ghostbusters"

(See note 1 below about the title)
This magazine is dedicated to investigating "Fringe Science" (including fringe interpretations of real science) and/or paranormal phenomena, and reporting as to whether there is any possible basis in fact. I suspect they're biased (against it), but probably no more so than I would be. There have been articles on UFO's, dowsing, astrology, hypnosis, "Recovered Memories" (see note 2 below), auras, remote viewing, near-death experiences (the light at the end of the tunnel), ghosts, poltergeists, haunted houses, "famous" mediums, "creation science" (see note 3 below), Uri Geller (see note 4 below), "cold fusion", "Bigfoot", and many other topics.

If I recall correctly, they've only found one "paranormal" phenomenon that could be confirmed; they found a man who could identify classical music phonograph records (you remember those; thin, usually black, vinyl disks with a small hole in the middle) with his hands. The test included a rock music record, which he accurately <G> reported as "noise", and one mislabeled record, which he accurately identified by its content, not by the label.

I find the writing interesting, although biased. However, I have a scientific background, and my father is a professor of statistics, so that I can follow the statistical analysis (often an important part of the articles) without a problem. If you don't have such a background, you may want to reconsider my recommendations.

As for the specific reasons I enjoy it, I suppose the best one is based on jealousy. On many of the scams they've uncovered, it makes me wish I'd thought of it first, in order to fleece the masses. Of course, I'd never really do such a thing....

On the whole, I recommend this to anyone who has a scientific background and wants to know the truth about fringe science and paranormal phenomena. I recommend against it for anyone who doesn't want to know the truth about fringe science and paranormal phenomena. (You may notice the gap there. Others will have to comment about whether it is still readable if you can't follow the statistics.)

Note 1 I took the title of my review from the title of a professional review reprinted in the magazine. I'm not good at titles, but if you've seen the movie Ghostbusters, you can see how I could consider it one of the best possible titles.

Note 2 I am not saying or implying that all recovered memories are bogus, merely that, in those cases where the truth of a "fact" revealed under hypnosis or as a "recovered memory" could be verified, it was hardly ever true.

Note 3 They are not anti-religious; that is supposedly reserved for another publication, Free Inquiry, from the same publisher, but with different editorial boards.

Note 4 Uri Geller has an unfortunate tendency to sue those who claim he does not have paranormal powers. As far as I know, the Skeptical Inquirer has won those suits. I make no claims here as to whether Uri Geller has paranormal powers.