I have to say that the percentage of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that end up retracted or refuted is significantly higher then the percentage of the time that my senses have given me information that has turned out to be false.

As for the "some hypothesis are just too extraordinary" argument; I have to say that, historically speaking, prejudging what types of hypothesis are just so extraordinary that it's not even worth looking at evidence in favor of them is a type of judgement that humans, even very smart humans, seem to be quite bad at.