Thats what those guys say they do huh. In reality, most of those "sceptics" bend the word reliable until it fits in their little biased world. In fact we propably all do that, including proponents aswell. What is actual reliable evidence? Everyone can define that differently. I personally dont believe that anything like that exists at all.
Those people that you call sceptics are no different from others. They also believe like everyone else - they just believe that something isnt true while others do. Its a matter of opinion/belief, not of evidence. Scepticism as a whole is a shallow thing.
But thats just me, criticising everyone and everything.
You raise some questions that I think are very relevant to this forum and I agree with you in some and disagree in others. I'll respond here briefly but unless OP doesn't object we should probably move this to its own thread:
1) Are skeptics biased?
Yes, as are proponents, as are everyone. But that's the point of using skeptical methods. Such methods are (should be anyway) designed to help us control for or reach reliable conclusions in spite of our biases.
2) What is reliable evidence.
Very good question, and one that is not asked enough (in my opinion) on this forum. We're not - or rather I should say shouldn't be - defining reliable based solely on our own personal preferences, intuitions, or what just "seems" reliable to us. Given the fact that we are all biased, this approach is doomed to failure.
Figuring out which methods are reliable should be based on research aimed specifically at answering this question. This involves controlled comparisons of methodology, identifying factors that enhance or diminish reliability.
For example: take blinding in experiments. Scientists didn't just think this this concept up and declare it more reliable than unblinded experiments based on their personal whims. Research was done comparing the results when blinding was used and when blinding wasn't used.
I've often referred to the cochrane group - (cochrane.org). This is a group of expert scientists, spread out over the globe, who over the last 20 years have been researching methodology, comparing different methods, and identifying which methods produce the most reliable results, what factors reduce the risk of bias/error and what factors increase it. Again: not mere personal preference, but research based conclusions.
Now, there may be situations where research has not yet been done on a particular question of reliable, and even where such research might not be feasible for any number of reasons. That doesn't permit us to just assume the methods used are reliable or not. Rather: we have to acknowledge that we can't say whether the results are reliable, and should therefore be cautious in reaching firm conclusions based on it.
Also, when I say research, I don't necessarily mean that it must be by way of formal scientific experiments. Again, that might not always be practical. But if we're using other methods of evaluating reliability we should have specific justification for believing it to be so. Justification that should go beyond "it just feels right to me!"
So why I accept that you currently don't believe in the concept of reliability, my suggestion is to take a look at some of the research on this issue. Most of it will not be in the parapsychological field though. I would start by spending some time on the cochrane site. There's some good background info there, including a video explaining their history. It might give you a better feel for what I'm getting at (and no question those guys can explain it way better than I can!).
3) Opinion/belief not evidence
Minor quibble here. There's nothing wrong with opinion or belief. We're filled with them. The question is what is the opinion or belief based on: is it evidence based or not. And if so what kind of evidence is it based on? Remember: not all evidence is created equal. Some evidence supports multiple hypotheses. All evidence must be interepreted (the term "follow the evidence" is pithy but not as easy as it sounds in all cases!
4) Skepticism being shallow:
At its best, I completely disagree. But I get what you are getting at, which is that some skeptics do not employ all that skeptical thinking in reaching certain conclusions. That's true and the reasons can be diverse - some justifiable, others less so - but have to get back to work!