to revile the message.
Other than that, the only thing I can think of to do is to talk about the nature of how it is that their claims, any claims actually, to KNOW something are even possible: i.e. the processes, logic, and semantics known as "rational empiricism", especially "the nature of (what is referred to as) proof", but is, instead, technically more like "support", not proof, - an IMPORTANT logical difference.
I don't know where to start with this, but it is also referred to as "the philosophy of Science" and, in our culture, it IS THE basis of what anyone means when they claim to KNOW something, the purpose of which knowledge, especially in this place, the internet, is to SHARE. If the putative "knowing" is broken somehow, the motive of sharing becomes questionable and we could at least hypothesize some OTHER motive, like power.
I always try to say that people have a right to think/say whatever, but let us at least admit, let us be honest about, what we're doing, when it isn't knowledge, it is wrong to claim that it is and if it's wrong, what the fuck are "we" doing with it?
One thing that rational empiricism DOES NOT allow you to do is to de-contextualize your "knowledge" and one of the most common practices I see around is to DEMAND that people infer waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much about missing information and then object STRONGLY to questions, often with personal insults, and especially questions about how what is "known" is known. Based on little more than stuff in the news, and, even with additional information, often without myriad missing and very possibly related facts in a nearly infinitely complex environment, I/we are to conclude that, e.g., "Obama is a liar." We are to assume that whatever the claim is, it is based solely on THE SIGNIFICANT "facts" and none other and that it is logically necessary, when there often are significant fallacies.
Knowledge is so relative that without it's context, it's not technically knowledge. It's not possible to always include context, but let's at least admit that when we're abstracting something.
These are important issues. People WILL bitch at you for getting into this stuff. I am deeply concerned, though, that if we CANNOT come to some kind of agreement about what does or does not constitute what we refer to as a "fact" or what WE are doing and what we are NOT doing when we seek and share knowledge, if we can't come to somekind of recognition of the discipline that "truth" requires, I have little hope for anything else that could function as a reliable and functional connecting point between all of our differences.
= new reply since forum marked as read