Alex describes the quandry for professional scientists in engaging in debates with pseudoscientists. The interaction itself can be interpreted as legitimizing their claims, and it is futile since the pseudos do not operate by rules of logic and use selective mining of the observational evidence. Also, the unethical or ideologically motivated pseudos can easily quote the scientist out of context and use that snippet nefariously.

So, I suggest that it is the role of the well-informed layperson with a passion for science to do the dirty work of refuting the claims of the Hoaglandites and such. That way, no direct engagement by a scientist can be misused or misrepresented. It also forces the scientific layperson to sharpen his or her knowlege on the topic. Scientists can facilitate the process by engaging in information exchange as on this bbs. The end result is that the mildly interested educated person can actually get exposed to the scientific method, satisfy their curiosity and maybe stimulate further interest. The true believer fanatics are hopless cases anyway.

-phil