Carl Sagan's baloney detection toolkit, for anyone interested:

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/

Sagan on the balance between open-mindedness and skepticism:

https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/23/carl-sagan-the-burden-of-skepticism/

As for evidence, I often think of it in the Bayesian way. You have established a prior that heavily weights the likelihood of the hypothesis that the election was free and fair with no significant fraud (enough to overturn the result in a state), and this prior is based on all the evidence for the hypothesis, including statements by CISA, state election officials and the results of court cases. We still keep a small nonzero likelihood that the election was 'stolen'. Now, in order to overcome the heavily weighted prior, the evidence must be substantial.