Having the background of being extremely well-trained in one field gives a different perspective than the typical "echo-chamber" of the elite in any specialty.
If you know something they don't, why not try to start a dialog instead of criticizing and dismissing?
Well, that wouldn't be so bad if they stuck to explaining the results of their experiments, but when they stray from that on to philosophical subjects, they're really no more suited to talking about that than any other non-philosophically trained layman.
It might help if they toned down the rhetoric a bit and make it clear that they're speaking about something that they have no training in.
On the other hand, I suppose I should be grateful that they're exposing the general public to ideas they might not have otherwise thought about, even if they do so clumsily and their conclusions are highly suspect.
Of course being an amateur doesn't lend a high degree of credibility, but certainly more than the average Joe.