I'll rewrite it in less technical language, Dozer - it might just be a bit longer and structured differently.
In academic philosophy, in universities, there is scepticism which is a historical school or way of thinking about reality that goes back to the ancient Greeks. In general, if you want to really get into the weeds about philosophical questions, academic philosophy does it in the most rigorous and technical way. But just like the academic sciences, it's not always very accessible to average readers and often seems kind of boring.
But something called scientific skepticism, or the Skeptic Movement, has become kind of a popular movement in the public sphere. It draws to some extent from academic philosophy but is more approachable while also being in some ways less rigorous. One way it's less rigorous is that it takes a definite point of view about how we know things. In philosophy the study of how we know is called epistemology, and it's important because if you are going to make any kind of claims about truth, you have to think about what we can know, how, and under what circumstances. A lot of the thinking in the philosophy of science overlaps with those kinds of questions, as you can imagine.
Scientific skepticism tends to assume as true a philosophical position called positivism, and a fairly strong version of that. Essentially what it says is that the only things that exist are material things, the physical universe, and we can know them through observation. And by extension, through science. This way of thinking, or something close to it, was something that philosophers considered a real possibility about 100 years ago or so, and thee were attempts to make it work. Since then it's largely fallen out of favour as there were problems that proved difficult to overcome.They couldn't get the support in terms of more fundamental questions to work out, justifying their underlying assumptions.
That being said, when scientific skeptics work that way, they can sometimes do well with debunking spurious scientific claims, things like homeopathy or ghosts and such. Science is defined as only including physical reality, so their approach is valid enough.
But they run into problems when they try and talk about things that fall outside of the physical world, for example metaphysical questions, like whether god exists, or the nature of being. Or even something like the nature of mathematical truths.
And they also don't have a very strong foundation to talk about epistemology and how we know things, including scientific things. And that's actually a really important topic in science, while not itself being just a scientific question. So they end up taking a very naive position on some of the really controversial questions in science which often aren't about facts and observations, but about how science should work, or about how it really does work in practice. They aren't very good at being critical of their own approaches to questions.
So this website, Evidence based Medicine - tha's just a term that means the emphasis is on using medical approaches that are really justified by good, robust research (which lots aren't) - is run by people who have toes to the Scientific Skeptic movement. And you can see where they get into topics like gender, that they struggle to deal with medical issues where politics are inserting themselves, or where there is disagreement about what evidence counts, or also I have noticed tend to be overly focused on the findings of institutional bodies. They can't deal with an area where the evidence given by bodies they see as authorities is all over the place.