Generally, sceptics are open to new phenomena as long as they come with 'knowledge' derived from naturalistic evidence based investigations. If the phenomena can be replicated only in convenient environments and/or circumstances or can be shown to be trickery they are rejected.
Carl Sagan had 10 tools to detect suspect reasoning. Most sceptics try to use these tools before jumping to conclusions.
1. There should be independent confirmation
2. There should be substantive debate on the evidence
3. Avoid arguments from authority. Experts are from within the field in question not outside.
4. Consider more than one hypothesis. Then falsify them.
5. Fairly compare your own hypothesis to other's.
6. If possible, measure, measure, measure.
7. In a chain argument, every link must work.
8. Occam's Razor.
9. Is the hypothesis falsifiable? If not look again.
10. Rely on experimentation.
Sceptics don't just brush something off because it looks goofy or doesn't jibe with their world view, they question the amount of careful study that has gone into the claim and will dismiss it if extravagant or poorly backed.
Weigh the evidence.
Weigh the credibility of the evidence sources.
Weigh the counter evidence.
Weigh the credibility of the counter evidence sources.
Why do you feel sceptics hide their premises? It certainly isn't a part of being a sceptic
Carl Sagan had 10 tools to detect suspect reasoning. Well good grief!!! Why did he never try any of them out on himself????
Sorry for not providing a more responsive reply, b_sharp. But I've got to call it a day and get some sleep....
See you tomorrow!