Then we went back to the group of folk scientists. First of all, although the cultural level of folk scientists is not high, they are willing to try again and again, and are willing to receive some knowledge put forward by some real physicists and analyze and demonstrate it. Then put forward their own different views and opinions to ensure their own views. Show that your opinion is based on certain facts, not words.
But at the same time, some people like to wrangle and always deny the arguments put forward by some so-called authoritative scientists. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity is the most controversial theory in physics. I still remember when the Nobel Prize was promulgated, some people said that Einstein proposed gravitational waves decades ago. Why didn't the Nobel Prize go to Einstein? Others questioned the authenticity and validity of the Nobel Prize, thinking that Einstein was the first person to put forward gravitational waves, but in fact Einstein himself did not express any opinions on this. This is mainly because Einstein put forward the concept of gravitational waves very early, but in fact he only vaguely put forward gravitational waves at that time, and could not confirm the existence of gravitational waves through effective evidence. This is why the Nobel Prize didn't give Einstein the prize of gravitational waves. On the other hand, some unreasonable folk scientists put forward a novel argument and began to publicize and even criticize some previously proved theories on a large scale. And I am full of blind confidence in my own judgment. Even if I can't produce any evidence, I can completely deny other people's arguments. In my opinion, this kind of behavior is called wrangling, not the so-called academic debate.