Skeptics are, of course, humans—flawed humans with tender egos who don’t like being challenged about their deeply held convictions (even peripherally)—but if the skepticism is going to matter more than an ideological cause, skeptics have to be willing to be challenged. They should welcome a crucible to their claims and be grateful if they’ve been called out on using flawed data. They should eschew bad arguments, not point fingers and whine that the other side did it first. They should be willing to entertain differences of opinions on issues of high complexity, especially when experts have differing opinions. They should be willing to accept their ability to err and their human frailty to ignore logic when their blood is up.

Instead, time and again, I’ve seen the opposite. I’ve seen comment threads by people who agree with each other on 99% of an issue breaking down because a single study involves comparing groups with too many x-factors. I’ve seen people conflate doubt with supporting the other side. And I’ve seen skepticism (in its truest sense) met with scathing repudiation and censure. For many in our communities a “skeptic” is more of an ideologue (perhaps even a fanatic would be the more appropriate term) who just happens to be operating on the “correct” side of a skeptical issue.