[crackrook]

You originally expressed surprise that skeptics hold this book in high regard. I just find your surprise a bit difficult to understand. If, on the whole, the work advocates for skepticism (among other things), wouldn't endorsing it be the consistent choice for skeptics? I would never throw out a programming textbook if it criticized and emphasized the too-common tendency of programmers to over-engineer solutions.

> 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.

[BeetleB]

> If, on the whole, the work advocates for skepticism (among other things)

Been a while since I read it, so I have to ask: Does it? What stood out to me was criticism of skepticism.

[crackrook]

Yes, in my interpretation, though not in isolation.

> 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.