Being skeptical as an overall, doesn't mean you should ever be doubtful to take a strong social position to support your beliefs.
If evidence and scientific method could be called 'a belief'. And if someone's beliefs are worth support from others, then my thought goes that kind of anecdotical way:
The main problem with decent, skeptical and righteous people is that more or less they don't like to get involved in politics and law, that is to say they don't pretty much like to judge and take huge social responsibilities. They truely believe that it's an insult for an intelligent man to be told what's right and what's wrong, it's an insult for an educated man to be guided morally. Well, guess what, the intellect and education of the average man could well enough be just another fairytale to be put on the test of doubt and reliance.
If anyone is keen to improvise more on the topic and is able to put more light on the question why evidential and harmful deceivers are not getting busted by law, please do tell. I know there should be many examples of popular frauds gotten sued, but I'm not willing to explore google for this information right now. If you happen to recall any, please do mention that too.