What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and -- especially important -- to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion that emerges out of a train follows from the premise of starting point and whether that premise is true.
This is a great resource for any skeptic who needs the means to deconstruct bunk into its baser elements. The examples are the best:
"meaningless question"
(e.g., What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? But if there is such a thing as an irresistible force there can be no immovable objects, and vice versa)
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/baloney.htm
; "The Blogger")
;)
;)
;)
;)
; "A honeycomb")