I have yet to meet the person who takes that position consistently, and only believes that which he has personally verified. Anyone who only adopts this view in response to selected issues is motte-and-baileying those issues.

Note that my response here does not rule out being skeptical over particular claims for definite reasons, only the blanket use of "Unless you're going through _all_ the source material yourself..." (your emphasis on 'all'.)

And why stop at source material? We know there is a replication crisis in science (the open discussion of which has, somewhat ironically, encouraged a wave of blanket dismissal of science), so surely this level of skepticism can only be assuaged by personally verifying all the original sources?

I agree with your points, which is why I think people should almost never be sure of one side or another. Necessarily, they should have some self doubt, just because it would be impossible to do all of the above. The only stance I think is indefensible is to think that one side is definitely correct (outside of extremely well defined problems).

I guess I agree from an academic point of view where absolute truth is nearly hypothetical and overwhelming evidence is rare. From a logistical point of view, I guess its risk/benefit balanced by evidence. For instance, Wearing a mask, very likely helps reduce indoor SARS-COV-2 transmission. The cost or hassle to me is minimal. That is in that risk benefit balance, I found the evidence for mask to be overwhelming. And yes, Skepticism is always healthy and the core of scientific thinking.

I would agree. To be pedantic, I still wouldn't say that the evidence for mask wearing was overwhelming, but rather, the cost benefit analysis clearly put mask wearing ahead, regardless of how clear the evidence was, just because the cost was so low.