The Vast Scientific Conspiracy

As with so many other subjects on which science treads boldly, I am finding it irks me greatly when ignorant individuals presume to lecture scientists on the vast conspiracy against their championed theory which they have "researched extensively". Please understand that I use the word "ignorant" in this vein (from Merriam Webster): "lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified". However, it seems that having "letters after your name" makes you an instantaneous target for individuals seeking an argument about their pet scientific issue. Given that I am encountering this type of discussion more and more frequently as a professor, allow me to clarify a few things that will elicit irritation (hopefully well-concealed due to common courtesy) and instant mental dismissal:

1. Do not claim to have "extensively researched" your issue if you haven't read a large swath of the evidence produced by the opposing viewpoint. Reading from the hymnbook with the choir does not make you an expert on the unwashed heathen masses in the pews.
2. If you do not understand the guiding principles behind scientific investigation, do not pretend to understand why or why not some experiments were done well or done poorly.
3. If you do not know the difference between multiple statistical formulas and why one would be appropriate over another, do not state that you know the statistics are "flawed".
4. Do not assume that your hypothesis is correct. If you are unable or unwilling to accept that the data presented to you may give you a result that is different from the one you wanted, then don't enter the discussion.
5. If you do not have a comprehensive education to provide you with sufficient underpinnings to analyze the function of a biological system, then do not presume you know more than individuals who have studied the biological system for decades.
6. Do not assume that just because someone has received an advanced degree, they are part of the "system" and will not ever listen to what you say.
7. DO consider your sources. Citations from peer-reviewed journals of high repute will advance your cause greatly, because the peer review process (while flawed) does provide a significant countermeasure to someone publishing whatever they threw together. Citations from a highly subject-specific society's own journal are less likely to aid you, and might make you look ignorant (depending on the source).
8. Please remember that scientists make their careers by receiving grant money on hot subjects. If your personal scientific topic involves a hot subject, you can bet there are plenty of studies being done on it, because scientists who discover something new have discovered a career-making source of fame & steady grant money. If there is nothing new being discovered, i.e. running against the dominant paradigm/theory, see #4.
9. Do not use vituperative or emotive language in your discussion. It merely demeans your argument. Ugly or demeaning language closes minds, it doesn't open them.
10. Respect the other person's opinion, as they will hopefully respect yours.
11. Realize that data interpretation is just that, interpretation. If you have the raw data and can prove a different conclusion, great! Publish it! Otherwise, perhaps it is wise to remember that the authors of scientific papers are the world's leading experts on their own data, and respect that and subsequently their opinions of that data.
12. If you are really convinced that there is a vast conspiracy on your topic of scientific interest, may I suggest you go become a scientist yourself and prove them wrong? Don't hold it against me (or any other scientist for that matter), however, if along the way you suddenly reverse your opinion in the course of your education.

Ugh. I really must stop offering to be a strawman for folks with agendas. It's quite depressing.