That's a fine skeptical attitude, but to put it into practice you'd have to be familiar with the relevant scholarship, read the paper, independently verify its arguments and claims, and come to an informed conclusion. You'd also have to be familiar with the standards of evidence used in the relevant fields, which aren't the same as the standards of evidence used in the hard sciences—they can't be because it's largely impossible to carry out experiments and there is a paucity of available evidence.

It's mostly abduction—the best explanation for the available evidence—which wouldn't fly in the hard sciences, but it's all that's available to archeologists and ancient historians. If your heuristic is "hard proof or bullshit," you'll inevitably reject everything that comes out of these fields. (also, history isn't any sort of science, soft or otherwise; it's a branch of the humanities).