Ladies and gentlemen: the article proves its own theory correct. When presented with enough non-controversial information, the average reader will lose interest -_-.

- - -

I think all of this is in large part built upon limited interaction and shallow analysis. If you give people enough time and information, they will probably be able to assess facts rationally and come up with a satisfying theory... at least to a point. Things may break apart once we reach the limits of falsifiability, but then at least we'll know where the problem lies.

We can take two routes here. Firstly - we can deny the existence of objective truth and thus give up on trying to establish anything (and, in consequence, on trying to prove anything to anyone). This will defuse any conflict immediately, since if nobody is "right", nobody is "wrong" either. The remaining solution is to, conversely, stick with there being Truth. This has the downside of causing disagreements, but it also provides us with a way of solving them - through rational discourse.

As a closing anecdote - I believe there are two groups of people not worth talking to: those who have strong opinions... and those who don't ;P. More specifically (and less whimsically): subjectivists and zealots. A subjectivist will refuse to change his mind, because to him everything is merely a matter of opinion. A zealot will refuse to change his mind, because he refuses to question what he considers to be the Truth.
I refuse to be either of the above. If their descriptions repulse you as well, be mindful that you need to avoid both intellectual apathy and stubbornness to avoid becoming one or the other yourself.