Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions

[Whateverist]

It's a well known fact of psychology that people take short cuts in reasoning about the world.  The idea that this or that particular area should be handled without appeal to these shortcuts is as irrational as it is futile.  We tend to rely on consensus and method to weed out reliable claims from unreliable claims, as well as the fact that past performance predicts future behavior.  Are these shortcuts?  Sure.  But do they produce a robust representation of truth and reality?  I would argue that they do.  Your complaint is long on principle and short on practicality.  If we gave every advocate of every belief the type of treatment you here want us to reserve for the paranormal, we'd never have time for anything else.  On top of that, it's possible that the reliability of our conclusions would be harmed instead of helped, as the wisdom of the crowd outperforms individual judgements in the bulk of situations.

So my question for you would be why you feel that treating only claims of the paranormal in this way is in any sense wise?

But the paranormal researchers would even reject to this as well.  They would say that the skeptics are drawing the wrong conclusions through faulty methods and shortcuts.  

Go ahead.  Ask me if I give a rat's ass what paranormal researchers think.