[LibertarianSchmoe]

That's why we hear things on these threads like "oh, you scientists think you know everything!" and stuff like that.

What gets me is the "no-win" situation they love to present. On the one hand, scientists think they know everything. In my experience, only one type of book has ever been presented as "infallible", and it ain't a science book. On the other hand, they (scientists) are always correcting themselves, so how can you trust anything they claim?

More inconsistency.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"What gets me is the "no-win" situation they love to present."

Exactly. When a scientist makes a firm position on a subject, they get ridiculed for being arrogant. When they present their claims as conditional and tentative, it shows that they don't know anything. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's a very convenient rhetorical stance, making every possible statement by your opponent suspect a priori.