Great questions and ones I ask myself frequently.
However, you would have to think very carefully about how you frame them when material reality is part of the belief in question.
For example, a flat earther might accuse a round-earther of being in a cult.
Let's consider how those questions apply to the belief that the world is a round-ish ball of rock spinning in space, that mass creates an attraction we call gravity which causes small objects (including gas molecules) close to large ones to be pulled to the large one, and causes large objects significant distances apart to fall into (relatively) stable orbits around each other, and it is the presence of two other large objects, also roundish, one very large, far away and hot and one relatively very close and not, and the relative rotations, orbits and declensions of each that between them act on our round earth to produce days, nights, seasons, tides and weather.
Are you capable of entertaining doubt or are you coming from a position of uncertainty
It is certainly possible that there has been a concerted conspiracy or error that has lead this "ball theory" to be taken as true, but it isn't something I typically question or see questioned
Can you articulate the evidence you would need to see to change your position or is the evidence unfalsifiable
Given that any evidence outside my own eyes is vulnerable to the same doubts above, it would have to be a ditect experience so something like I'd have to be taken high above the earth and see that it is not round, and that my "rocket" does not escape earth's orbit into space but hits a solid roof with the moon painted on
Can you articulate your opponents perspective in a way that they recognise or are you straw-manning
Oh easily. The earth is manifestly flat. That is our direct experience. The only reason we ever think it is not is third party materials which are false.
Are you attacking ideas or the people who hold them
Oooo, I want to say ideas, but Flat Earther is an insult so now I feel doubt....
(Skipping the last questions as they are about the identify around the belief rather than the content of the belief)
So you see, lack of flexibility and denial that one might be wrong is framed as indication one is possibly having cult-like thoughts, but are equally the hallmark of knowing sonething is a material fact.
The fact the earth is round is not unfalsifiable - one need only be shown that it is in fact flat. However, in this reality, given everything we collectively believe we know, it is unfalsifiable in practice because such evidence cannot exist.
When I worked through a similar thought process for Gender Critical Feminism, the important insight is that the GC feminist belief is not the reality of sex - in this universe at least, that is a material fact, but the significance of sex.
And ironically it was my answers to just these questions that really clarified and solidified my gender critical perspective.
What evidence would I need to see to accept I am wrong?
Is it evidence that "gender identity" exists as an innate mental state? No. I can entirely accept that this might be true. Even if it was, it would still be something separate to physical sex. It would not change the faxt that female people have been abused, exploited and marginalised because of our physical sex not our gender identity. It would not mean the sex-based needs which single sex protections arose in response to no longer exist. My gender critical Feminist belief is not fundamentally about rejecting gender identity, it is based in recognising the significance and mechanisms of sex-based inequality.
Is it evidence that physical sex has no social, physical or economic consequences? That being female rather than male has no impact on a person's opportunities, experiences or safety?
Yes, absolutely. If that were true, GC Feminism, in fact Feminism in general, would be unnessessary, a false belief.
However, in reality we already know it is not true because the evidence sadly is already there to the contrary.
Like the round vs flat earth, I can imagine what the evidence to prove me wrong would be while also knowing in this reality that such evidence existing is simply not possible.