That sounds pretty good then. It's not quite at a Bayesian ideal; when you run across evidence that weakly contradicts your existing hypothesis, that should result in a weak reduction in confidence, rather than zero reduction. But overall, requiring a whole lot of contradictory evidence in order to overturn a belief that was originally formed based on a lot of confirming evidence is right on the money.

Actually, though, I wanted to ask you another question: what specific analyses did you do to arrive at these conclusions?