Having read an article recently I found an interesting take on the Believer/Skeptic rift that indicates that the rift isn't nearly as wide as we sometimes make it out to be.
So don't focus on buzzword labels like "closed minded" or "true believer". You can be both of those things and still be able to properly analyze evidence and draw a supported conclusion. You can also be guilty of neither fault, and yet be unable to distinguish a well-supported conclusion from mountains of poor evidence. Focus on the method behind the conclusion. Focus on the quality of evidence that supports the conclusion. The ad-hominem attack of "He's closed minded" says nothing at all about the quality of evidence.
To sum up, I want to know what others think of the difference in methodology between Believer and Skeptic, hopefully with something to back up any opinions whether it be logic or a scientific journal or anything in between. I don't want to delve into which methodology is better or worse or to create a springboard for insulting the opposition. Leave that for the other threads. If you think the opposition is just being stupid then you had best offer something to support that other than ridicule. It's a mystery to me that has just as much validity as the ETH or UFOlogy and I'd like to see any replies to help diminish this particular one.
Edited by Slave2Fate, 30 January 2013 - 11:19 PM.