The downside of skepticism: it can easily turn into an arrogant position of a priori rejection of any new phenomenon or idea, a position that is as lacking in critical thinking as the one of the true believer, and that simply does not help either science or the public at large.

Given the power and influence that science increasingly has in our daily lives, it is important that we as citizens of an open and democratic society learn to separate good science from bunk. This is not just a matter of intellectual curiosity, as it affects where large portions of our tax money go, and in some cases even whether people’s lives are lost as a result of nonsense.

In my mind, there is no reason why Stoicism shouldn't become as popular as Buddhism, especially in the Western world, where the dominant culture, Christianity, itself absorbed a large number of elements from Greco-Roman Stoicism.

What the world needs is more compassion; love in the broad sense, and use of practical reason to solve human problems. What it needs less is ideological and religious fanaticism, of which, unfortunately, there currently is aplenty.

I can't speak for others, but I find the fundamental idea that a life worth living is one during which one strives every day to become a better person to be compelling.

The Stoics thought that a fundamental insight into human life is that some things are up to us and others are not, the famous dichotomy of control. Up to us are our judgments, decisions, and actions; everything else is not up to us, because it is influenced by external factors.

The Stoic discipline of action, which is connected to the virtue of justice, says that we ought to treat others fairly and we should engage in social and political activity. This is further supported by the Stoic idea of cosmopolitanism, and by the famous "circles of concern" identified by Hierocles, who counseled that we should refer to other people as brothers and sisters, to constantly remind ourselves that we are members of the same human family.