I think it comes down to different epistemologies:
Group A (incl. nearly all scientists):
- Something cannot be taken to be empirically true unless you really do all of the groundwork needed to establish that it is.
Group B (incl. people distrustful of science):
- Variant 1: Something convenient (the E-Cat) cannot be taken to be false unless you can rule out all possible explanations for why it might be true.
- Variant 2: Something inconvenient (fracking causing earthquakes in the US state of Oklahoma) cannot be taken to be true unless you have no discernable dissensus among scientists.
Group C (incl. me):
- Most of the time Group A have it right. Every once in a while the sociology of the scientific enterprise gets in the way of the actual science, and you need to dig into the matter a little more to get a balanced picture (LENR).
That is an excellent summary. Except that between A and C there is a continuum of differing judgements, and different willingness to explore low probability possibilities, so the dichotomy while it makes the point is maybe unrealistic.