That standard of evidence either satisfies a minimum probability threshold ... or it does not. When it looks like a quacker, walks like a quacker, talks like a quacker ... then we know it's not a dromedary. Human measurements are what they are ... probabilities within confidence intervals. I submit that it is not extreme to dismiss the improbable (by reasonable standard of evidence) ... and may even be extreme to entertain the improbable at the expense of the probable. Living in finite time and space as travelers, I further submit that we are not afforded the luxury of infinite probation. That we must make our evaluations on the fly and on the known facts. The crush of time is hard on the elderly ... but no more generous on the scholarly.That's jumping to extremes. Too often, the hard evidence is lacking. In fact, almost all evidence is lacking, and that too is by design. The concept of plausible deniability is fundamental to the game of deception being perpetrated against us. Throwing away the sketchy evidence will leave us with nothing.
IMO, tolerance for extreme views should be in proportion to the aberration of those views from the observable facts. As a rule. You'll always find the Copernican exceptions.
That's what our long term storage space is for, Chico ... biological diskspace ... to store information away. Not to keep loading up and consume our biological RAM, leaving a a diminished amount for useful data and processing. If newbies want in on the data set, the Nexus archives are there to access pro and con arguments for GFL, Ashyana Deane, Kerry and the Sunshine gals, Bob Dean, Inelia, Burisch, looking cubes, leering balls, all-seeing peaks of pyramids, jump rooms to Mars, etc..I propose that the proper way to deal with the realities of this dilemma is to throw nothing away. Keep every puzzle piece you are given, but with the realization that it may not be a part of the puzzle. Don't try to decide whether it is or not, because you cannot know. Instead, keep it handy, checking from time to time if it might fit the puzzle picture you are working on. Because that picture changes as it expands, any puzzle piece may be the one that fits the blank you need filled. Or it might be a better match than a piece you are currently using, because it has a better fit and superior context. Such a strategy will allow you to complete the puzzle and see the whole picture. Sure, you will also end up with a large pile of unused puzzle pieces, but that doesn't matter if you succeed in completing the puzzle picture. That, after all, is the goal -- to see the big picture and know the truth.
I just happen to be one of those misfits who requires harder facts than "the vehicle of assertions" can deliver ... before I submit my biological RAM to the unbearable lightness of almost being. I respect that you may have much more RAM to throw around than I do.