Science

Opening statement: people that discard science as magic and/or erroneous for contradicting evidence and/or incapability of knowing the "almighty truth" are purely, simply, idiots.

Supportive: people have the weirdest belief that a scientific theory is a hunch, a guess or downright fantasy of the mind. These people are not capable of higher reasoning. A theory is a sound, predictive and logical formalized expression of surrounding phenomena. It is supported by rigorous observations and/or experimental data. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, theories are explanations based on facts that are either observed or experienced and not guesses about how things might or should be.

Argumentative: people think that science is inconsistent with itself. This is where the religious dogma of the "almighty truth" comes into effect. Being fed the truth with spoons and being told not to think outside this truth, for nothing exists beyond it, it is only natural that people are skeptical and even reject progress as a form of not knowing anything. However much I hate to use sayings, this one fits in perfectly: "live and learn". Religion teaches you all you need to learn and all you have to do is live by these teachings, not learning anything new. However, science never admitted to knowing "the truth" (for even such a thing is preposterous, absolute would mean deifying oneself), but only statements that explain by testing and observation the world around us.

Some even believe that science evolved from philosophy and thus is unreliable. Such people are incapable of abstract and synthetic reasoning. Yes, science had its humbly beginnings in philosophy, but not by guessing about the world around, but in its metaphysical sense: people asked questions about themselves and the world around them (philosophy) and proceeded to seeking out the truth (with by and large scientific methods, which were available at any given historical moment).

Some argue that since Newton's gravity was contradicted by Einstein's gravity and finally by quantum physics, science is inconsistent. This would classify in the "live and learn" section. Since I already argued that science is emitting statements upon observations, it is only natural that Newton had no way of observing the colossal gravitation effects of space and even to understand the nature of the photon. Relativity theory and quantum theory, as far as gravity goes, contradict but they still explain the events from which they are derived (the vastness of space and sub-atomic particles). And for mostly all our purposes of everyday life, Newtonian physics still apply, so it is still sound reasoning and observation of natural phenomena (you can contradict him when we'll be inventing space travel or quantum transportation). As a matter of fact, unlike what most believe, relativity theory is proven by experimental means. Not just a hunch by looking through a telescope.

Finally, the issue to address is that of unstable elements. Of course scientists disagree on many facets. Sometimes their disagreement is constructive, sometimes not. Because some pieces of the equation are missing, it leads to conflicting results. But bickering is common among everything. Even in religion about the nature of the soul and god, for instance. And it is a common sight that, as psychological effects weather down a man, so some scientists are just driven by insanity or megalomania, and such individuals have little in common with physics, but rather could be considered as subjects for psychological study. They do not follow scientific methods, they do not reason, they involve emotions and that...well, that just isn't science anymore. As for the "revolutionary" ideas (I'll name perpetuum mobiles and zero point energy, for example's sake) supported by what naturally people would attribute to science, such as faith, belief, hunch, imagination, that is pseudoscience and it is as remote from the real thing as da Vinci's flying machine was from a truly flying object (since he believed wrongly that levitation is created by the flap of the wings, and not by pressure differential, as it is).

Conclusion: if people are still not convinced about the merits of science by looking around them and observing technology (which, by the way, is contrived using ONLY scientific means, not personal charisma and revelation). You cannot have a revelation about how to make a television to work without the centuries' worth of study on electricity and particles done before you. So, if you still believe science to be a hoax, then you aren't idiots anymore. You are simply, purely, stupid simpletons unable to understand logic and method.