>Scepticism is not the psychological disposition to treat the increasingly implausible with the same equanimity as the increasingly plausible.

Okay, maybe that is a fair description of skepticism, but you're stating it as if you're an authority. I don't know that you're an authority on skepticism.

>The sceptic is under no obligation to ignore decades or centuries of science, nor be partisan to no established body of knowledge.

I don't think there is any authority figure who can say what skeptics are obliged to do or not to do.

>Sceptics are at their very best profoundly partisan to such bodies of knowledge,

I have no reason to believe you know what the "best" sort of skeptic is.

>This is an article in praise of gullibility as the highest form of scepticism, a very common attempted rebuke to sceptics when one has failed to meet the reasonable standard of evidence they demand.

I don't think you are reading the article correctly. I don't expect you to justify your interpretation to me, but I wonder whether you have a method to justify your interpretations to anybody. Maybe you are a very systematic and logical debunker, and you can justify your debunking calculations to your peers. If that is so, you should be a university professor or a think-tank principal investigator. You could share your debunking methods with the world that needs them.

>It is also a subtle ad-hom,

I think you are misreading that.

>The principled and knowlegable sceptic, who is not credulous nor obnoxious, not paranoid nor overly trusting -- this is a person in 2025 who would give no time to "parapsychology"

Well, maybe you really are qualified to decide which skeptics are principled and well-informed. If you really are qualified, you should be teaching others to be skeptics. If your methods really are so foolproof, you could purge the world of superstition.

But maybe you are not qualified to speak as if you were an authority on who is a skeptic and what methods are skeptical methods.