Case example would be this question:
I think that's a perfectly valid question. It has received 5 up votes, and yet one close vote as off topic, presumably because it's a medicine question, and not strictly an "applied skepticism" question, as such.
Do we really want to define the scope of skepticism so narrowly as to only be about whether or not certain things work?
To me, skepticism is a pair of glasses you should preferrably always wear when looking at the world. It permeats everything, or at least I'd rather it would. Of course I don't think the scope of this site should be everything. But I do think that the scope of this site should be any question that can be given a "let's see what the scientific literature seems to imply" kind of answer.
To me, the greatest function of a skeptic movement is to educate the public on issues where it really matters. When people are suffering, or just being fooled into spending a lot of money, that is our scene. I, for one, would love it if all health advice had a scientific taint to it. Therefore I'd love it if we wanted to be the first to answer some guy asking for such advice.
I think the fields of science in general and medicin in particular are extremely important legs of skepticism, where most of the skepticism action takes place.
Should we encapsulate that? Or am I just letting my own great interest in medicine flow over into realms where it doesn't necessarily belong?