True. No scientist should feel he can just wave his degree without presenting evidence. However I think you overlook just how much distrust there is of scientis

True. No scientist should feel he can just wave his degree without presenting evidence. However I think you overlook just how much distrust there is of scientists. A scientist doesn't start on equal footing with the "guru". People (who like anti-science) are always suspecting scientist to be talking some random bullshit with big words to confuse them, or can come up with conspiracy theories to shoot them down. Scientist can go on TV and show all the pretty pictures of graphs showing their argument, but it takes a guy with no clue to say: "Oh, but you forgot X" or "That graph is deceiving because..." and suddenly the scientist is playing defensively again. And when a scientist dare stop playing the game then if he just stop replying he is accused of being in an ivory tower and being arrogant, and if he start attacking the other theory then he is accused of having created his own religion/faith because "that's not the evidence-based arguments that a scientist should do". It's a lose-lose. I am not saying there is no way out, just that for a scientist to drive his message home takes a LOT more than just showing he has some evidence.