The modern skeptic ‘thinks that belief in X ought to be proportional to the amount of evidence supporting X.’ That means ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.’
Thus, modern skeptics do not necessarily reject new claims; it’s just that they weigh them against the evidence attendant to the claim. That puts to light conspiracy theories. The burden of proof lies in both the conspiracy theory and the popular item it debunks.
Evidence is paramount since ‘things aren’t quite that nicely symmetrical.’ The conservative skeptic will always ‘raise the bar for evidence, thereby lowering the chances of rejecting the null hypothesis and accepting the new belief when it is not in fact true.’
One’s beliefs should be adjusted to the available evidence, true. But in this day and age when evidence keeps changing and the layers of deception are many and deep, it seems that there is no longer room for absolute belief in this world of lies and propaganda. The machinery behind the convolution of truth is sophisticated, even high-tech. Wouldn’t it be more prudent to always start out with the null hypothesis that the claim is not true. This may yet be what healthy skepticism is all about.
Like it or not, today, you are either skeptic or gullible. Either depends on what your gut tells you or, more desperately, how much your life and limb hang on the balance for either one. We can’t blame conspiracy theorists for how they are.
