I operate thusly:
There is an objective reality.
Everything is knowable.
Anything that can’t be measured doesn’t matter.
If you make an assertion that is other than the general consensus and/or my observation, incontrovertible proof must be provided.
The person making the argument must provide the proof, the other party is under zero obligation to accept any argument without proof.
The NYT is just as guilty as religious folks in asserting that people who disagree are under some sort of obligation to prove anything; be it religion, conspiracy theories, economics saying ‘nope, you haven’t proved it to my satisfaction’ is an absolutely ironclad response to any argument as far as I am concerned unless there is physical proof to the contrary.
Hmm, I'll have to remember to try that next time I get in an argument!