Is there objective Truth?

[Neo-Scholastic]

My understanding of the difference revolves around whether or not something can be explained by reference -to- the natural...To use your other example, psi, if it did exist..and we ended up explaining it by reference to some ability that a human body had that would, ofc...make it natural.  It was always natural...at some point it may have been unknown, but it was never supernatural.

Don't you think, to use supernatural as a pejorative, as most hard-line skeptics do, only to later reverse one's self as if it were an innocent mistake is a bit duplicitous? It seems to me that when hard-line skeptics describe something a supernatural they do so as a means to ridicule any possible evidence and remove it in advance from serious consideration. For example, why does the term 'debunked' get slapped on only some negative research results. For example, Dean Radin gets 'debunked' while Freud was simply mistaken even though looking back his work (Freud's) was pretty much classic psuedo-science.