The Moderator wrote:

> **********Moderator's Note**********
>Thank you for the link. It must be noted that a skeptic (although
>derived from skeptomai: to observe) by definition is a "person
>inclined to doubt accepted opinions" or a "person who doubts the
>truth of religions". I do not wholly agree with the Steven Brill
>quotation on the website, "Skepticism is a virtue", on the basis
>that skepticism leads to heavily skewed opinions not representative
>of the facts. Criticism having considered all factors is good, but
>searching to find ways in which the various elements of TM may be
>criticized certainly is not. For example, from the very first
>paragraph of the article linked above opinions are portrayed in a
>mocking, sensationalist tone. Also, the moderator(s) feel it
>purposeless to criticize any established religion or its practices,
>simply because they are founded on belief and experience
>respectively rather than logic.

There are other definitions of scepticism/skepticism. It seems clear
to me that scepticism/skepticism in the sense espoused by Martin
Gardner, James Randi, Michael Shermer, etc. most certainly does NOT
lead to "heavily skewed opinions not representative of the facts"! On
the contrary, scepticism/skepticism in this sense is an essential
part of the scientific method. As for the Skeptic's Dictionary
article's alleged "mocking, sensationalist tone", surely the bizarre
claims of the TM cult (levitation, reduction of crime, etc.) are far
more "sensationalist"? These claims are certainly not "facts" - the
evidence for them is simply not there.