In reply to malk:
> (In reply to off-duty) almost every post you're in there with no real point- what's your game?
My point here was just that "that is what people do".
Science (and science programmes) try to explain theories behind things, explain the scientific process and try to explain why some ideas are irrational.
As a wider point the internet operates as a double edged sword, providing a wealth of information but with no filration system to weigh the credibility of that information.
The result of that is that those with no scientific background or no knowledge of the subject seem to find it much harder to discern the quality of the facts they base their argument on.
Part of the skeptical mindset should involve assessing the calibre of the information you are basing your skepticism on. Unfortunately that often doesn't happen.
When this is coupled with vociferousness on the internet not being related to credibility of the argument with a large dose of confirmation bias applied, then you get conspiracy theories, anti-vaccination lobbies, homeopathy to treat cancer, misinformation about GM and fracking.
The only way to combat an ignorant argument is to rebut it with facts. Unfortunately cramming a university degree and a large amount of postgraduate research into an discussion post can be difficult, and scientists aren't always good at explaining their work in terms the non-specialist readily understands.
PS - Not sure what your problem with me is, I've only posted a couple of times this week.