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 wo

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.