[BackBackBack]

Default skepticism doesn't mean verify everything every time. It means that when confronted with a new claim, a claim you've not decided yet its validity, you should abstain from taking a position until you have enough evidence to accept or refute the claim.

In the case of your example, I gather you've bought rice before, you've probably bought at that store before, you've used money before and you've eaten food before. By the looks of it, you've probably cooked before with that same kind of rice. Hence you are not evaluating the rice and all its production line from scratch every time you buy the rice. You already evaluated that claim and you've found that the store and their products are acceptable to you and that is why you probably bought the rice.

In that case you abandoned long ago the default position because you already had the required evidence to take an action. Which is the only purpose of the default position.

The default position is not the forever position.

[SketchySeaBeast]

The problem is that now you've evaluated that news agency or political leaning and you've stopped evaluating it, and 15 years later the message has changed but you haven't noticed.

[BackBackBack]

Why would you only evaluate the news agency? You evaluate "from the claim" not "from the claimants".

I know that is what people do, and that is why this article exists, to tell them not to do that. Ironic I know. But hopefully someone will get it.