This comment rubs me the wrong way. The fundamental error for conspiracy-theory types is to confuse "unproven" as "probably true". It's basically the same error when naively wielding the scientific method so as to conflate "unproven" and "disproven".

> I will believe in Atlantis, or Thule, or whatever, when there are proofs. In the meantime it’s a fantasy dreamt by ancient Greeks, opportunistically repurposed

The appropriate attitude for scientists is agnosticism, but this hints that you already have your preferred answer. Skepticism should cut both ways.

Logically, if you'd have trouble proving the existence of our own contemporary cities after the passage of geological time, then you'd likely have trouble with any other cities. And for archaeology specifically, new discoveries happen all the time, more frequently than say fundamental physics, so more humility also seems appropriate. Atlantis in particular might be fraught with baggage, but as another example, scholars are still undecided about whether the hanging gardens of Babylon (one of the wonders of the ancient world) actually existed, where they were exactly, or if they were always legendary. Do you have a strong preference for that too, or does the change in context also change your process/preferences for establishing ontologic / epistemic status there?

> Come on. The fact that knowledge evolves does not mean that everything we believe is false right now will be proved at some point. Some things are just false.

Again, things are false that are proven false. Unproven things are just that, unproven, unless they are categorically impossible. Obligatory "I like science and am not a flat-earther" disclaimer, but science (or those claiming to speak for it) will have to occasionally accept well-intentioned criticism as well as dish it out. The best way to respond to a cult-like following of misinformation is not to build a cult-like following for science.

> It's basically the same error when naively wielding the scientific method so as to conflate "unproven" and "disproven".

That is not what I wrote, at all.

> The appropriate attitude for scientists is agnosticism, but this hints that you already have your preferred answer. Skepticism should cut both ways.

Skepticism means not accepting an argument at face value without some kind of validation. Something that is partly supported by evidence can be used temporarily as the best current explanation and be discarded or improved in the face of new evidence.

What really rubs me the wrong way is people using skepticism as a weapon of disinformation and rhetorical argument. The first thing to be skeptical of is yourself, because 1) as an individual you are very likely to get carried away by ideology or emotion and 2) this is very difficult to correct because you’re using your own brain to assess and correct itself. If your pet theory is unsupported by evidence and you need a whole scaffold of conspiracy theories for it to make some kind of sense, then the first target of skepticism is yourself, not the others. And you really cannot blame other people to point that out.

> Logically, if you'd have trouble proving the existence of our own contemporary cities after the passage of geological time, then you'd likely have trouble with any other cities.

There is a logical misstep here. We have no trouble whatsoever proving that cities existed, even if we did not find every individual city. For the whole Atlantis thing to make sense, you’d need a whole species able to build cities and manipulate climate intentionally or not, and yet they never left any trace outside this specific location, and something cataclysmic that at the same time also left no trace. It’s not a problem of lack of people looking for it, either. I am really sorry if it annoys you but here it is: the whole thing is entirely unsupported. Show some evidence and this will change. Do your work: it’s not a religion and we are not supposed to accept unfounded beliefs.

> And for archaeology specifically, new discoveries happen all the time, more frequently than say fundamental physics, so more humility also seems appropriate.

You are making that mistake again, so let me reiterate: an evolving field of knowledge does not mean that an unproven theory has any weight and should be accepted uncritically just because someone might find it in the future. Though I do agree on humility, but humility is not only for others, just like skepticism.