I don't think he is advocating that. Trusting scientists because they use controlled experiment, peer review and other similar tools is quite a different thing than trusting them based on authority.
Just like our ideal legal system, to prove someone guilty it has to be done beyond a level of reasonable doubt. Science should be scrutinized in a similar manor.
Often I feel scientists are disproportionately hurt when someone attacks their conclusions. They need to get over their own emotional shortcomings and find a solution to the problem. Much like people need to get beyond "common sense" and reason with the facts.
Science has its own epistemological methods. You don't prove something beyond a level of reasonable doubt because that's a) vague, b) really difficult (rarely science proves anything), c) the scientist never claims that his theory cannot be improved, i.e. it's perfect/finished.
On the other hand scientific agreement comes when a theory explains current data and can predict many new situations, and these were tested not just by the author but also by other people in other places with other apparatus. Every article is also checked for the assumptions and methodology that are stated in each paper. The scientific method cannot prove anything but has its own ways of knowing things...
... which is why it is so hard to give a scientific answer against some wacko unscientific theory.
The fact that the person doesn't see experiments or peer reviews is no excuse: that is the way science proceed, and it's open to anyone to scrutinise. You seem to suggest that scientist shouldn't just scrutinise each other's work but also answer any complain/criticism from someone who has no clue about the field. But you know, there's a reason the scientist spent 4 years of Uni and maybe more later: how can society know "beyond a level of reasonable doubt" what the scientist have agreed upon if they don't have the tools to understand it?
My suggestion as to what the scientist is supposed to do when encountering a completely unscientific argument is below. Please note, I am not trying to respond to any of the other aspects or questions you asked -- this "simple" response became way too long as it is :-)
PREPARE AHEAD OF TIME: A. Learn to communicate. A lot of life is dealing with miscommunication. It seems scientists as a group have the same issue with miscommunication that software developers generally have. This is very important where the science is critical for impacting public policy decisions. Especially, learn to listen, so that the metaphors and analogies that are guiding the incorrect thinking can be ascertained.
B. Expect that as soon as you are using science to advocate for public policy changes scientists will have opposition. Actually, the science part isn't the prereq, it is the "advocate for public policy changes". Lots of groups who advocate for public policy changes get villianized. It sucks, but it should not come as surprise to anyone who enters into that arena. If you (generic) want to be left alone, keep your head low. If you (generic) want to stand up for something -- you will be opposed.
REACT: C. Educate. In my opinion, the scientist is supposed to educate people in a simple a terms as possible. I believe scientists used to view this as part of their duty and I believe it has been something that has been generally lost (fwiw I have a 3 volume set of articles that great scientists such as Einstein and Bohr wrote for lay people that span over two centuries... often the articles were published in newspapers.. I have loaned it out, otherwise, I'd list the set for those interested). To educate the lay people, write articles for news papers or online venues. Engage critics with openness, because in doing so professionalism is shown and confidence is built up.
D. Be respectful. Don't refer to people who disagree as deniers or anti-science or ignorant. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Figure out the faulty metaphors they are employing and reveal them. At the worst, agree to disagree. I have recently encountered a scientist doing exactly this, and have been very impressed with him (and I expect I disagree with him on some fundamental beliefs), but I have contacted him to encourage him in what he is doing, and even sought his feedback on some of my own interests.. because I can trust him to be methodical AND respectful. Respect opens up the possibility for long term dialogue. Also, keep in mind that your audience isn't only the person asking questions or postulating absurd theories. It includes the people who are undecided watching the debate (or reading the news article, etc..) as well as the minority / subset of the opposing view who are willing to listen.
FOLLOW UP: E. Make a point of gathering objections, alternative theories etc, and having the data that refutes them readily and publicly available. This is just a tactical confidence building move.
SUMMARY: Please note, I'm not encouraging necessarily that a single person do all these things. Happily scientists do not work alone, are part of associations, etc.. and collectively they can do these steps and maintain/gain/improve a good footing with the public. And doing so in a respectful way will gain more good will (even from people who disagree) than you might imagine.
At the moment I see all around me at University people who are working like crazy to write some paper or meet some deadline. These are the metric on which the scientist is judged, and most of all how he/she can preserve his job. Scientist risk being fired like everyone else (well, at least young scientist).
So society has tried to fill this gap with new jobs: the scientific journalist and the writer of popular science books. They are those doing the job you describe. And there is one added advantage. Many scientist can find it difficult to explain things to the layman for the simple reason that they don't quite understand the knowledge gap between them. I've met many good scientist who were terrible lecturers and that is to a classroom full of wanna-be scientist who go good grades and passed exams.
So yes, scientist should be taught at uni how to talk to non-scientist effectively. But I think it's even better to have someone else, who knows the general topic, reads the papers, and writes a big summary in it for the laymen. They can probably do a much better job.
But as this article showed you still get flak, and a lot of it. And not just flak: you may be taken to court! And sometimes this may happen even if you keep your head low, simply because your paper is starting to get good reputation and so other scientist may use it as an argument in their discussions.
One last word: it's kind of tough when you know the topic well and someone who clearly has no idea gives you an argument on why you are wrong. If you give them the benefit of the doubt then they achieved their aim of muddying the water. If you take up the challenge and try to show why he is wrong, you get attacked for using complicated language or concepts that the laymen cannot understand, or simply branded as a stubborn zealot. And metaphors can only take you that far: a lot of the difficult science is completely against common sense so metaphors don't help much.
A couple of times I had to discuss with people about probability. Their argument was the usual fallacy that if you get---say---10 heads in a row then it's more likely to get a tail. They will mention things like "you need to get 50/50 in the long run" or they will make distinctions between short runs and long (statistical) runs. And no matter how much I tried, I couldn't show they were wrong. If I tried to talk of absolute deviations and relative deviation then I would already lose them. And ironically Math is not science: a scientific theory is never 100% right, but proved mathematical theories are (as long as you start from the right axioms). And yet there was no way.
I think you underestimate how easy it is to come up with random explanations or muddy the waters when you are not uphold to the same standards than the scientist.
P.S. That said I personally don't think it's a scientist job to decide about policy changes. I mean, I'd love it if an expert did so, but what society wants is decided by society. Scientist are there to provide the info, not to decide how to use the knowledge.
I do however agree; many researchers I work with don't understand the benefits of adopting a strong inference approach.
It sounds like he is advocating a trust system based on titles, organization membership, etc. How is this different from trusting them based on authority?
I think the title _does_ mean something: it was neither bestowed upon him randomly nor inherited by blood.
Let me ask you another question: who do you think runs faster, a random guy I pick you see in the street, or a guy who won an olympic medal in athletic? Most people somehow feel winning an olympic medal is all about merit, but getting a Noble isn't!!!
I understand what you are saying, but my point is that those two are in science a lot closer than you seem to suggest. Titles (such as a noble prize) are won thanks to reputation gained from those experiments and peer reviews. If your karma system is based on what you published and that is subjected to peer review and scientific methodology, then your reputation (i.e. your karma) are a good hint that the person knows what they are talking about.
In other words: trust scientist --> high authority --> gained by good experiments and subjected to peer review
I think what he was trying to say in the sentence you quote is "I believe the overwhelming majority of the people who have looked at this subject, have a history of backing up their claims with robust, tested, reviewed evidence and are doing so in this instance".