Originally posted by Maelgrim

So if it is then 'scientific' to question published results, why all the hate when people come back with 'this is inconclusive/flawed/fails to account for variable X'?
Because the discussion is NEVER about the facts outside the scientific community. It's broad, sweeping statements about science that are, honestly, nothing more than opinions backed by little fact. Here's a scientific question that's fit for scientific discussion:

In most lifeforms, replication or reproduction comes with a certain maturity of the organism. If is true, then progensis involves more than simple neotony. Where can we actually find examples where this phenomenon results in a viable species rather than one that simply goes extinct because it's unable to reproduce?

Even simpler discussions rarely occur. It's mostly people finding incorrect facts on the internet and pasting them for those who know the science to attack or to explain. Most explanations, though completely reasonable and educational, are ignored because the people involved in the discussion aren't interested in really getting answers. They're only asking the "scientific question" in the first place in hopes that there's no one around who can actually explain the science. More often than not, there IS no one around who can fully explain the science because scientists are busy having scientific discourse or teaching science to people who WANT to learn.

I'll paste you the most often seen attempts at a scientific discussion by such people. Most of the times, it's not even posted as a question. It's posted as a fact when it is a completely wrong statement.

"I'll tell you the most wrong thing that science tries to teach you. How in the world did man evolve from monkeys like the theory of evolution says? Only an idiot would believe that."

I'll tell you why this isn't even an attempt at a scientific discussion.

1) The stated science is wrong. The theory of evolution does not state ANYTHING like "man are descended from monkeys".

2) You're already starting off with stating this is wrong without supporting evidence. It's simply OPINION that this is wrong.

3) You've already stated your conclusion, again, without supporting scientific facts.

Surely you can see the difference between science trying to disprove theories within its field than someone with no scientific background simply running in with an opinion backed up by a book written by man or a "I read it on the internet". Honestly, you don't even need a scientific background if you can simply ask the right questions and actually be a part of the discourse.

For example, I'm not a physicists. I don't know enough physics to truly delve into quantum mechanics, but I can question the infinite worlds theory. Something just seems a little off about that theory, but if I were to question it, I would definitely be reading the answers to the people I pose my questions to.