And the scientists tell us that the pronouncements of the friends of the paranormal are a tissue of fantasy, error, wishful thinking and fraud. We might hope that philosophy can say something useful in this sort of predicament, where we are confronted with conflicting testimony. But they can't both be right. The first point to note is the difference between doubt and disbelief. I can just conclude that the evidence is not good enough, at this time, to settle the matter definitely either way.
Scepticism is a matter of doubt rather than denial.
In fact this is the characteristic stance of scepticism. A sceptic is someone who calls a knowledge claim into question. Scepticism is dogmatic when assent is withheld on the basis of prior conviction without considering the evidence. Global scepticism is rare outside philosophy seminars. Dogmatic scepticism, regrettably, is less unusual.