I agree we should not believe but I'm also not sure of Charles Fort's "we should only accept and not believe"
There is a difference between Reality and Experience. This is often illustrated with the snake and the rope:
You are walking down a path at dusk and up ahead you see a snake coiled up on the path. You can see the head of the snake, and it looks like the tongue hanging out, there are some faint stripes on its skin, and you can even make out what looks like as a rattle on the snake's tail. Of course, when you approach, ever so cautiously, you see that it is just a coiled rope even though in your mind you have imagined a snake in great detail. Therefore, you experienced a snake in your visual senses but the reality is it's a rope!
If, upon experiencing a snake, you accepted it, (ala charles fort), and turned around and ran as fast as you could, then you would believe it was a snake. This is what we are all doing to a certain extent. However, if you approach that snake you had experienced, then you can get to the reality: it is a rope!
So I would say don't accept, don't believe, instead...approach.
I worry about the implications of accepting everything you experience because it leads to a debilitating relativism.
On the other hand, I worry about the scientists who have been walking down a path at dusk, and say "look, up ahead, there is matter!" and they believe it is matter. Standing a good distance away in the dim light, they have devised all kinds of instruments to keep the dream of atomism alive by finding smaller and smaller particles.
Scientists have experienced matter, but is it a snake or a rope?