Dealing with science 'deniers'

The issue being framed in this article and conversation is 'how to deal with 'science denialists'.

My response:

How to deal with human beings?
Communicate with integrity!
If you perceive a 'science denialist' in place of a human being then there are clearly some distortion filters operating as your 'mind'.
If what is meant by such a term is how to deal with someone who refuses to open or engage in communication then, if you want to, you can express your perspective as best you can and move on to where some sense of shared worth and value of relationship exists.
By the time an issue has become polarized with identity investments - there is no opportunity for anything NOT to be filtered and distorted by the coercive attempt to set agenda or determine outcome.

Science can deal with the what - up to a point at least - but it cannot begin to address the why - except as dictated by the definitions that are used to determine the what.

How to deal with a polarised and arrogant rationalism that actively operates to deny and replace the feeling quality of awareness?
Don't ! - Because it is not listening and will only use everything you give it against you.
However, where there is a genuine sense of humanity, there is a capacity to feel, resonate, discern and influx expanded perspective. Indeed, without the non physical, the why would be missing.
Without the felt movement of life, robotic programs run as forms of mimicry - including the virtual realm of fake emotion for a fake persona. The survival of the right to deny Life by asserting an oppositional persona. Denial is the freedom not to accept. This can be used FOR sanity or against it - by slitting off from a relational wholeness to defend a conceptually split agenda - which is generally negatively defined.
When enough people are stuck in the same place (imprinted by the same conditioning) they call it reality.

One cannot talk only about the 'world' and really have anything to do with truth. Truth is not in the world, but is a congruency or honesty of integrity - of unified purpose. Conflicted identities cannot have anything to do with unified purpose for they are the conflict by which it is denied to a truly felt awareness.

The attempt to eradicate or overcome conflict with force is the righteousness trap. There are no holy wars. But there is a holiness to Life that can dawn in the mind that desists from using war on Life to force it to conform to self concept.
Science can no more be denied than anything true. Excepting in the mind or choice that usurps the true with a false substitute - some trojan that passes off - some tricksy financial instrument that becomes accepted currency.
Once scientism serves a hidden agenda - many will smell a rat or sense the bait and wont take it. And their own persona may rationalize all kinds of stuff around that - but a true honesty is not coercive nor appeals to guilt and fear to unsettle and induce conformity of allegiance. Regardless the 'fact of the matter' I don't care for loveless and deceptive trojan agenda - ESPECIALLY when dressed in such seemingly unarguable presentation.

http://arstechnica.co.uk/staff/2015/12/ars-science-qa-how-do-deal-with-science-denialists/