I've been meaning to write something in response to Daniel Loxton's Skepticblog post on the scope of the skeptical movement for some time now, but having been otherwise distracted with work and the seemingly endless Elevatorgate feuding, PZ Myers has beaten me to the punch. And while I sympathize, to an extent, with Loxton's desire to put clear boundaries around skepticism, I also agree with some of the points Myers makes in his post.
These arguments are nothing new; they've been a staple of debate among skeptics for a long time. See the links below for fairly recent discussions in which the different views are articulated (some better than others, of course). The arguing will likely continue, because, in my opinion, they're about what we value, individually and collectively, as skeptics.
