There is a distinction between skepticism and denial. There are some deniers who pass themselves as being of the noble title of skeptic unopposed, because the distinction is not readily recognized or made by the general public, and therefore evades the common vernacular. I've seen a famous skeptic drift into the denier column on subjects like the paranormal to the point that when asked if his opinion would change if he experienced these things firsthand, he replied that he would immediately admit himself to a hospital where they could find the brain tumor, chemical imbalance, etc that would have to be responsible for the 'hallucination'. And he was quite serious. There are some skeptics who take their neutral positions to avoid the risk of actually being found wrong if they commit to one position or another except for the security of those things that are so well-worn that virtually no doubt remains or if it's any topic that's non-controversial. To me this can be a form of intellectual cowardice. Then there are those who ignore existing evidence or even fabricate their own to avoid having to give an alternative viewpoint any credence at all. With my work, for example, my skepticism grew from the fact that the status quo of mainstream cosmology simply did not answer fundamental questions arising from known anomalies without ignoring or denying not only hard scientific findings but also accepting the weight of countless personal experiences recounting virtually identical details as being itself a body of evidence demanding an explanation other than stock denial and dismissal. And then I made a commitment to a position, which indeed takes courage, like standing against virtually the entire field of mainstream physics by rejecting the existence of dark matter, a conclusion that science itself is now reluctantly drifting toward albeit kicking and screaming the entire way. I recount this not for any ego-driven motive, but to illustrate a living example with which I'm personally most familiar of what I've been saying. Science is a tool; it is intended to be a servant of humanity, not its master. When one devalues, demeans or dismisses the moving experiences of a significant portion of humanity for the sake of safety and security based on any intellectual construction of system or philosophy, that one enslaves and dehumanizes all of humanity.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, folks know I've been saying for years that, based on the experimentally testable predictions of supergeometric theory, there's no such thing as dark matter. An article in this month's Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matters-elusiveness-means-search-may-soon-become-more-challenging/) reports the frustration of physicists at failing to detect the slightest evidence of its existence, even with the most sophisticated devices. Running out of options, the prospects are fading for ever detecting it. What I find most interesting is the statement at the end of the article that, if dark matter only interacts with normal matter through gravity, then we'll never find it. The statement is important because it reveals what you weren't taught in school: there is no physical constituent to gravity, no material component to it like a graviton or a gravity wave, and therefore there would be nothing material to detect. Zip, zilch, nada, just as the supergeometric model shows. Of course, paranormalists already know about physical effects with no detectable local material cause. The article covers just about every possibility save one: that dark matter really doesn't exist. Why are they so resistant to the possibility? Because that admission, with one fell swoop, will utterly destroy forever the materialistic paradigm that dominates physics today. I'm sure that's a frightening prospect to many of them. They thought they left researchers like myself at the base of the mountain as they scaled the summit of reality. Imagine their embarrassment when they reach the top and find us to have been sitting there all along.