I'm not so sure, Linda. It sort of seems to me like maybe the problem isn't the "being unconvinced" bit so much as the "being derogatory" bit. Reasonable caution is being unconvinced. Cognitive dissonance is being derogatory.
Oh. I was talking about the being convinced part. You were the one who came up with "crackpot". I don't think derision or name-calling is useful in any case (hence my mod+ designation).
However, one of the surest ways to avoid derision is to do what I suggested n the OP - persuade your critics by providing evidence. If anyone was deriding Marshall beforehand, it sure worked in this case,
You seem to lean towards a positivist epistemology. Would that be fair to say?
I'm not into philosophy. I had a look at the Wikipedia article and I doubt it - I'm not a reductionist, for one thing (which seems to be part of it?). I describe my perspective as "methodological naturalism is useful". But that's not meant as an exclusive statement.
Linda