Scientific analysis and scientific method are based on skepticism, experimental proving and empirical accordance to proposed hypothesis.

Even most basic laws of physics are tested and being perceived skeptically thousand times every year - in tries to find any flaws or something that was not yet taken into account by them.

It's up to the person proposing a wild hypothesis to provide evidence & arguments backing it up.

It is basic rule of Hitchens's razor - burden of proof is lies on a person who is claiming something that is challenging established status quo. And if they fail to prove their position or provide any reliable evidence - their position should be dismissed until such proofs are provided.

And in general - The Russell's Teapot argument and thought experiment are exactly about this.

Interesting that religious philosopher's critique of Russell's Teapot is very similar to critique of biology by gender activists.

Russell said that if God made anything that changed objective reality - then burden of proof is lies on person who is claiming that God is objective reality.

And all his critique was based either on "God as idea" and on "subjective perception of individual" or their "feelings and beliefs" - in other words not challenging what Russell said at all.

And similar situation we see in Emma's or Collin's threads when they are discussing biology with gender activists - they are providing facts, statistics, researches, but receiving in answer talks about subjective perception or feelings.