Here's something else to add to the question: the WET/DRY skeptical spectrum.
For example, in the early days of CSICOP, Marcello Truzzi as a scientist was a "wet skeptic," and he resigned in protest because the group was far too "dry skeptical." And decades later it happened again, when Randi split off from CSICOP to form his own group, mostly because Randi's followers are far more "dry skeptical" even than CSICOP. See below for more about "wet" versus "dry."
FAQ of the usenet sci.skeptic newsgroup
0.6.1: Why are skeptics so keen to rubbish fringe ideas?
--------------------------------------------------------
Skeptics vary on the attitude they take towards a new fringe idea,
varying from the "wet" to the "dry". The question of which attitude
is better is very much a live issue in the skeptical community. Here
is a brief summary of the two extremes:
DRY: There is no reason to treat these people seriously. Anyone with
half an ounce of sense can see that their ideas are completely
bogus. Time spent trying to "understand their ideas" and
"examine their evidence" beyond that necessary for debunking is
wasted time, and life is short. Furthermore, such behaviour
lends them respectability. If we take them seriously, so will
other people. We must ridicule their ideas so that others will
see how silly they are. "One belly laugh is worth a thousand
syllogisms" (H.L. Mencken, quoted by Martin Gardner).
WET: If we lay into these people without giving them a fair hearing
then we run two risks:
1: We might miss someone who is actually right. History contains
many examples.
2: We give them a weapon against us. Ad-hominem attacks and
sloppy logic bring us down to their level. If we are truly
the rational, scientific people we claim to be then we should
ask for their evidence, and then pronounce our considered
opinion of it.
The two extremes are perhaps personified by Martin Gardner (dry) and
Marcello Truzzi (wet). Note that no particular judgment is attached
to these terms. They are just handy labels.
People who read articles by dry skeptics often get the impression that
skeptics are as pig-headed as any fundamentalist or stage psychic. I
think that this is a valid criticism of some skeptics on the dry end.
However, an article which ridicules fringe beliefs may also contain
sound logic based on careful investigation. As always, you have to
read carefully, distinguish logic from rhetoric, and then make a
judgment.
Read more:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/skeptic-faq/#ixzz0VlTPFdo7