There are tons of websites out there on skepticism, pseudoscience and denialism. Why is this website any different? Why should you read this one instead of any number of other pages about similar topics?
Diversity: This website takes a wide aim at pseudoscience, taking on and debunking claims from the anti-vaccine movement, opposition to psychiatry, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, creationism, rejection of mainstream climate science and many more. It also discusses basic concepts in science and skepticism.
Depth: Detailed point-by-point refutations are often provided.
No one is shielded from criticisms: People and groups who are popular within the skeptic community do not get a free pass. If they make pseudoscientific claims, they get criticized just as harshly as the typical denialist. For instance, I have dissected anti-psychiatry claims by biologist and talented creationist critic Jerry Coyne on medical psychiatry and the efficacy of antidepressants, despite the fact that he is very rational in many other areas.
No illusions: I do not pretend to be an expert on the topics I discuss and I certainly admit that I could be mistaken. However, I tend to be less charitable when discussing points brought up by denialists that have been refuted thousands of time. This website provides responses to critics and answers to reader emails on a semi-regular basis.
Open to correction: I have no problem being corrected by readers and often update posts with notes on limitations in arguments discovered by commentators. Corrections on facts, interpretations, spelling and grammar are welcome.
Responds to critics: I often engage with critics in the comment section and post responses to criticism in bulk as new posts. Cranks do get a fair hearing, although not always in a location of their choosing. For instance, this website often declines publication of comments supporting genocide denial because this is not a platform for such extreme bigotry. Instead, their claims are taken on and refuted in a separate post.
Claims backed up by scientific research: Most central claims made are backed up with references to the primary scientific literature or reliable internet resources, enabling readers and critical commentators to investigate the scientific basis for the claims that are made. When evidence is not known or available, the claims are usually correctly identified as speculative.