An interesting post (here) discusses the practice of "discounting" (often understood to mean: ignoring) empirical results, all in an effort to be "skeptical." An excerpt:
"A vast number of scientists have managed to convince themselves that skepticism means, or at least includes, the opposite of value data. They tell themselves that they are being “skeptical” — properly, of course — when they ignore data. They ignore it in all sorts of familiar ways. They claim “correlation does not equal causation” — and act as if the correlation is meaningless. They claim that “the plural of anecdote is not data” — apparently believing that observations not collected as part of a study are worthless. Those are the low-rent expressions of this attitude. The high-rent version is when a high-level commission delegated to decide some question ignores data that does not come from a placebo-controlled double-blind study, or something similar."
The author goes on to note (with no small amount of irony) that: "These methodological beliefs — that data above a certain threshold of rigor are valuable but data below that threshold are worthless — are based on no evidence."