I agree, yet I will note that he goes out of his way in the book to label skepticism and then criticize it. He did not wish to be thought of as a skeptic. The Descartes quote is in the book as well.
Put another way: He was a skeptical person, but he did not ascribe to "skepticism".
One thing I was pleasantly surprised to find in the book was an inclination to believe certain things to be true that many skeptics will refuse to entertain due to the lack of evidence. The only example I can recall was that back (and other) pain is often entirely psychosomatic. He didn't invoke John Sarno, but he showed clear openness to believing it. It wasn't a simple "I must have an open mind, so I must consider this as a possibility", but an actual assertion of his belief in it given recent findings. He gives a rationale on why it is a reasonable thing to believe.
(Sidenote: I have a lot of pain, and Sarno's approach did nothing for me)
> He goes out of his way in the book to label skepticism and criticize it.
Respectfully, I disagree, his criticism reads to me primarily as a criticism of dogmatism. First and foremost he seemed to identify as a "scientist", but he also maintained that you can't have effective science without skepticism.
> He did not wish to be thought of as a skeptic.
I would just differ by saying "He did not wish to be thought of only as a skeptic," I am not sure if that is a complete departure from your intent.
Been a while since I read it, so I have to ask: Does it? What stood out to me was criticism of skepticism.
> It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas.