Skeptical of any way to be less wrong, i.e. determine what is more or less likely, because the available methods are imperfect. Therefore all explanations are equally likely? No.
 
Denying iq, using gene-environment interaction to muddy waters, controlling for iq without saying you did, not controlling for genetic confounds, denying statistical inference as "not science" or not evidence (without a plausible counterclaim which also doesn't require inference like this)
 
 
Raising the bar to deny information contrary to the hypothesis they have no positive claims to back up
 
Basically, "your evidence doesnt meet my arbitrary criteria or specifications, allowing me to pretend it doesnt exist, and therefore my position is correct by default"