Skepticism typically has kind of a sliding scale. We are less sceptical of reports of things that we expect to be true than we are of reports that contradict what we already believe to be true. I think that's rational. What about reports of religious miracles? I have the impression that most scientists think that lab is a group of cranks. Sure, maybe they do have cool evidence of something that is going to turn our entire picture of reality on its head. That's occasionally happened in the history of science. When it does, it's often a very big deal. But for every time that it's happened, there have been a hundred times when claims of revolutionary findings fell apart when they were subjected to outside scrutiny. We can't have it both ways, we can't just credulously believe that scientists in their white coats are our new secular priests bringing us the saving truth about the transcendent (they're scientists! it's a Cornell lab!!), while simultaneously dismissing the great majority of scientists for their damnable skepticism and the whole history of science that doesn't appear to be consistent with the amazing new revelation. It might be a scientific revolution, but it's more likely to simply be false. That's my opinion at this point. So I don't believe it, but I'm willing to wait and see what else develops. If people at Cornell start cornering the market on lotteries, horse races and the stock market, if people from DARPA and the CIA start flocking into Ithaca, then I'll start to listen up more attentively.