Unfortunately, "college graduate" and "educated" aren't synonyms. Most liberal arts majors couldn't tell you how a vaccine works. I had a close friend who was an honor student at a decent college, who thought the atom bomb was dropped in 1900. Millions of "educated" Americans think the theory of evolution may be in doubt, a far larger percentage than anywhere else in the world - a larger percentage than in the Vatican.
You can't change a person's mind with evidence, if they're invested in their position; they'll just dismiss you. The Vaxxers desperately want someone to blame for their childrens' conditions, and they've chosen vaccination as the goat.
What I would like to know is how this change in measured convection rate affects our models of solar lifecycles. Granted, this may be a methodology error; IANAP (anymore), so I can't answer that question, but it seems to me some important new questions arise as a result of this finding. Does this mean stars age slower than we thought, or faster - or is the rate unchanged? Is the overall heat transfer is slower, is some other known mechanism transferring more heat, or is there some unknown transfer mechanism we have yet to discover? There's a lot of work for some lucky grad students out there.
Why not just call Chuck Norris a wimp? I've never heard of Schneier being described as naive (except, perhaps, by the TSA), much less a fool. While it's possible for very educated and accomplished people to be foolish, I think Bruce's long history of excellent work in the field, his written work, as well as his job history with the US DoD, BT, and Counterpane Security would lead me to at least respect his opinion, even if I disagreed with it.
Speak for yourself; I'd had a Mac for almost 8 years, and I had a connection to a Vax Cluster. My buddy in the apartment across the hall had a MicroVax in his office. Sun pizza boxes running Solaris 5.0 were all the rage.
Now, get off of my lawn!
This assumes that faith and reason operate on the same level; they don't. Open-mindedness and Religiosity are orthogonal. You can either present facts, or make an appeal to faith, not both. This is the same argument that people use to advocate for teaching Creationism in schools, and it's just as false in this case.
"355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!"