Earlier quoted context omitted.
Skepticism should begin with the skeptic's own motives. A skeptic's second question (after "Really?" or "Why?") should be, "Why am I asking?" Do they want to test the claim to learn something, or to dismiss it, just to dismiss it? If they're asking questions which are literally answered as part of the claim, they need to start over, and start with themselves.
The article claims that 363 billion tons of phosphorous were dropped on earth 3.26 billion years ago during a decade of darkness. I’m completely incapable of making sense of that claim because it’s so far outside of my expertise. But my fundamental problem is that I don’t trust the source’s incentives to deliver reliable information and I want someone independent to help me understand if this is a how strong or weak…
I'm nobody to lecture people. I don't matter. I just really dislike seeing epistemic nihilism framed as skepticism, and that's the vibe I was getting from the top of the thread.
Science is the proven process for investigating nature while dealing with questions like "What if you're wrong about everything?" The comment at the top reads, out of context, like an absolutely wild example of someone asking, "What if you're wrong?" as if it's something new that's never been asked.