The Trouble with Many Skeptics

> I was with the author right up until the footnotes, where they take a completely unwarranted opportunity to trash a source they don't like (Never Split the Difference), calling it "poor" without either explanation or evidence.

The explanation/evidence for that would be much longer than the article, and a distraction. I've actually thought of writing a lengthy blog post about the book, but it would take a lot of work.

In any case, I've discussed it here in the past:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27335076

> Isn't that more-or-less what the entire rest of the article says is wrong with skeptics?

Not at all. My criticism of skeptics isn't that they do not provide explanation or evidence. Indeed, the criticism is that skeptics think that doing so is sufficient.