A short sarcastic laughter would probably have worked better. If people sense their status is lowering because they believe in this "equally valid opinions" nonsense, they will have a strong incentive to update their belief.
Of course, many will be offended, in which case I recommend turning the sarcastic laugh into a benevolent, condescending smile, with perhaps an appeal to their intelligence to soften the blow. Ideally though, you should spin it as if you were ridiculing a third party. This lets them avoid direct confrontation if they so chose, and you still get to make your point.
In any case, they cannot be taught as long as they subscribe to epistemic relativism. They first have to get rid of it, somehow. Doesn't matter if it's for the wrong reasons. Only then can they be taught how to properly change their mind.
Acting condescendingly will only serve to make people think you are a condescending git.
Then again, the best way to do it is to act as if you were ridiculing a third party. If they get offended, try not to notice, and direct your condescension at those other people you're pretending they're talking about. Give them a way to save face.
Whatever the means, the idea is to stress that epistemic relativism is not socially acceptable. Make them feel that thinking such thoughts has consequences.
> Make them feel that thinking such thoughts has consequences.
I do not condone actually carrying out dire consequences, we've had enough dictatorships to show us how this plays out. I'm talking about manipulating people. A little. Because nothing more innocuous that I know of will do.
I think there's probably an argument to be made about there being benefits to smaller communities, but that argument isn't supported by legal tradition surrounding the word "peer".
So some rules must be created for this experts, what tools they use, what software ...
I think the problem is going to get worse before it gets better.
Unfortunately, the people passing judgment (judges, lawyers, juries) are generally not scientists, and therefore are equally likely to believe the guy with the paedo-dowser as the next guy.
Unreliable witnesses are as old as the justice system - “science” gives them a veneer of respectability now, just as it has in the past.
I see two problems, neither of which have an easy solution:
1) scientific literacy is dire, and worsening. Education helps, but when anti-science sentiment runs rife in popular culture and media, as it does now, education is met with resistance. I have been reduced to a gibbering wreck trying to explain to otherwise intelligent people that science isn’t “just an opinion”, and that astrology and astronomy aren’t “just different, equally valid opinions”.
2) the concept of the jury trial is broken. It used to be that you would be tried by your peers - people who likely knew you, had a similar background to you, could empathise and make judgments based on a clear understanding of your world. Now, you’re tried by strangers who have usually been carefully selected to be as hostile as possible without an outright admission of bias. I think there’s a happy medium somewhere between the two, as there are obviously biases in both cases.