First of all, being "A Sceptic" (A Debunker) *is not* about "having to protect this label at all costs." (Oh Really?! No offence, but i've never heard of such put forth and to me just a silly on the face of it IMO! LOL.
To me, that's a gross understanding of what "A Sceptic" really is.) And sure, maintaining "a healthy openmindedness" is always just a "Given" for any honest sceptic worth his salt.
And it's folks like Mick West et al who are the positive ones, the very Sceptics and dissenters, who simply speak-up and "illuminate the terrain of what's wrong as a first step in improving it." Illuminating the Terrain. They're outspoken when they need to be, and they debate about what's messed-up, why it is. It's actually the Skeptics and Debunkers that are absolutely necessary for this world to stay civilized. And there just aren't enough of them. All we can do is honestly inquire and question, instead of defensively asserting and assuming.
Sceptics have no need to prove anything. This sort of "believer presuppositional" and magical-thinking is illogical, so asking one to disprove a negative is an unreasonable request. Occam's Razor can also be invoked as a guide to making the fewest assumptions, and "assuming a priori" is a major assumption (an assumption that is true without further proof or need to prove it.) So the burden of proof and extraordinary-claim lay squarely on the believer's head.
However, the "proper default position" is not the "open-mindedness" trotted out by many empty-headed fools who want to hold open the door just a crack on the fantastic, supernatural and obviously ridiculous woo-claims. (That's just sloppy-thinking IMO.) Agnosticism *is not* the proper default position. That is the product of a kind of sloppy thinking that A Sceptic needs to be on guard against!
The "proper default position" is atheism (or nonbelief) and *not believe any extraordinary or positive claim until there is sufficience scientific (falsifiable) evidence available. Those claiming to know have the burden of proof to demonstrate that this is the case. And in the lack of any convincing evidence, the proper default position is *not to accept their claim.*
I notice "the argument from ignorance" also comes up a lot in general discussions of the supernatural, where believers use their ignorance of the cause of some experience they’ve had as justification for thinking that a supernatural explanation is just possible and likely.
No matter how well presented some of the comments are, the Believer's default position is always toward the irrational, magical-thinking, supernatualism and woo in general. So if one chooses to believe then anything is, was and will always be possible. (For them, No basic research, inquiry, study or understanding is necessary!)
The Universe is still a magical, mysterious and very fantastical-place *but which operates on natural-laws and rules* we have only recently begun to parse.
23-Skidoo.