This kind of skepticism isn't actually skepticism. Its internalizing good arguments without understanding them, instead using the phrases associated with these legitimate concerns as magic words for social dominance and denialism.

The typical "correlation doesn't imply causation" retort we see denialists level is a classic example of how people tend to use a phrase to avoid a reason-driven conversation about correlations (of which causal relationships are a subset) and instead shut down the entire topic.

The core of skepticism is inquiry, not denial. And modern Reactionary skepticism (because that is what it has evolved into now: a kind of reactionary culture clique) is all about stopping any inquiries it isn't predisposed to prefer.

I think the term for this is "thought terminating cliche." There may be some of that in this thread, but reading those questions/concerns charitably I think most people are curious, but perhaps a bit too busy/lazy to read the article in full before raising their concerns. The trope that being wrong on the internet is the best way to get somebody serve you the truth on a silver platter may also be in play, though I'd expect to a lesser degree. ("I wonder if they controlled for X" -> "I'll accuse them of not controlling for X, so that somebody will tell me whether they did.")

I don't really think it's productive to pathologise people as "denialists". People probably don't think of themselves using that term, so using it allows people to disassociate the critique from their own personal behavior. I think it's more useful to recognize that some tendency towards low-brow responses exists in all of us to some degree (particularly on sites with tempting point/karma/ranking systems), and we should all strive to do better.

Metagaming the purported hidden motives of people you disagree with is not rational. There is no evidence for your claims about how those you disagree with manipulate social discourse in order to shut down topics.

I'm not talking about intent. In fact, I dont know if they feel like they're being good skeptics or not. What I do know is people engaging in this fashion are not being skeptical no matter how they feel or what they intend to do.

I don't think most people are doing the thing you're implying they're doing. Nobody is trying to shut down the conversation. Most studies do an incredibly poor job of controlling for exogenous variables.

It's pretty rare that I read a paper that has not at least given some thought to the types of obvious correlation/causation concerns that come up after just reading the title of the paper. That said I'm always interested in what comes up in discussion threads here, so I wouldn't want to shut off the skepticism.

That itself is an apocryphal claim, but even if I take it at face value it doesn't really apply to curated data sets that we tend to be exposed to by media outlets with modestly competent science departments. The Economist is certainly not the best out there, but it's very far from an uncurated data set.

I would argue that this kneejerk skepticism and incredulousness are actually two sides of the same coin. Neither demonstrates actual curiosity or desire to learn.

I don't think there is any conflict between skepticism and curiosity. I'm sure most of us have been curious and skeptical of something at the same time. I find that skepticism compliments curiosity, since unbridled enthusiasm can easily corrupt my perception of reality while my desire to perceive reality is derived from my innate curiosity. I aim to never stop learning, and to always remain skeptical. Failing the later, I will fail the former.

I think you mean credulity, incredulous(ness) refers to a lack of belief and is thus synonymous with skepticism.