Its amusing that you think Randi isn't aware of this. He fully understands the scientific process. But he is not trying to publish some peer reviewed proof, as you seem to want to hold him to those standards. Like any other person he is entitled to have opinions and when he says he doesn't believe in dousing it doesn't mean he thinks he has proven dousing false universally.
There is also a semantics issue with your use of the prefix "pseudo". Pseudo- does not designate something that is merely wrong. It designates a failure to fulfill the conditions required for a thing to be what it claims to be. A pseudofrog would be something that is claimed to be a frog but fails to meet the necessary and sufficient conditions to be a frog. Likewise "pseudoskeptic", used correctly, would not designate someone who doubts in the wrong way but someone who fails to doubt while claiming to be a doubter. A skeptic cannot fail to be a skeptic by believing too little, as you say...
Pseudoskeptics believe too little but use the same methodology [pseudoscience] to 'prove' their skepticism.
You could claim Randi is a pseudoskeptic if you claimed that he believed too much (i.e. that dousing is false).
But that claim highlights the error of your objection to Randi in the first place. As there is a difference between believing something is false and not believing it to be true.
Cheers
Slashdot Mirror
Pseudoskeptics believe too little but use the same methodology [pseudoscience] to 'prove' their skepticism.
You could claim Randi is a pseudoskeptic if you claimed that he believed too much (i.e. that dousing is false). But that claim highlights the error of your objection to Randi in the first place. As there is a difference between believing something is false and not believing it to be true. Cheers