The Amazing Randy for example I think goes to far in his methods for disproving something "weird". Instead of working from a neutral premise he (and Psicop also comes to mind) work from a hostile standpoint and gear every test to disprove a thing while often disregarding findings that might prove something.
On the other hand many believer sites simply refuse to accept that there may be normal, rational explanations for something (the prevalence of "orb" photographs as an example, which have so many normal explanations and can so easily be duplicated that it makes their presence not really worth further study)
For my money... We live in an amazing cosmos with room for almost anything to exist in some form or another. But as soon as something "weird" is proven to exist it by default becomes normal.