The choice seems to be to either:
A. The righteous ones telling laypeople to just shut their mouths and believe by faith in what the priests in white coats are telling us. (Assuming that the righteous ones understand what that is, which isn't always the case.)
B. Try to provide laypeople with some of the reasons and justifications that the mainstream scientific community has for saying the things that it does.
My own view is that B is far more educational, and far more intellectually interesting for Sciforums' participants, than A. I'm just not comfortable treating science as if it was theological-style revelation from on high.
I see nothing wrong in appealing to authority, as long as that authority is within the discipline being discussed.
I also do not believe that anyone is saying to have faith in science and just believe the blokes in the white coats.....The Idea in itself is rather contradictory, when we know that any scientific theory is able to be falsified.
And speaking as a layman, for lay people, most of the accepted knowledgable ones here, do just as you say in point B.
Most lay people do end up accepting the reasons for science disciplines saying what they do.
The problem arises when as the title of the thread suggests, would be's if they could be's and anti mainstream individuals, question, deride, refute and make false claims re established science.
The majority of these trouble makers, set out just to do that...make trouble by claiming to know better then centuries [in some cases] of mainstream scientific knowledge has established.
Nothing wrong with an alternative theory that someone may devise, whether that someone is expert in that field or not.
But when they are asked to produce evidence supporting their hypothesis, or evidence invalidating/falsifying the incumbent model, they either cannot [and then start ranting on about "It's only a theory" solely to impress the lay people who may not be quite attuned to what a scientific theory really entails, or in some cases are able to come up with some mathematical process they claim support their hypothesis, but which in all cases is shown to be lacking, or just plain mistake riddled.
Recently, we had an alternative Idea proposed in the "Everett's Hypothesis"thread.
I made a comment in that it was the first alternative proposal I have seen here, where the initiator did not claim he had a theory that was unquestionably correct, and would revolutionise science with it and get rid of the years of mistaken beliefs that the mainstream had.
In my relatively short time here, I have seen threads [and associate claims] where alternative proposals have absolutely claimed, The BB did not happen....BH's/EH's do not exist....SR/GR are wrong.....Time dilation does not happen.
All of these claims were not from any Joe Blow layman. They were in most cases, from individuals that did seem to have some knowledge of the subject.....Some of course were obviously trolling and baiting, revelling in the replies that refuted their ridiculous claims.
As a layman, as a person who is in awe of science and what it has achieved, as someone who does know what a scientific theory is, as someone who also has a vivid Imagination, and enjoy speculation as long as it is recognised as just that, I see every reason for scientists to be indignant to the attitude of some.
And in my limited way, I will support them.