While one can certainly appreciate Nye and Tyson's attempts to bring scientific fact to the masses, you're absolutely correct in saying they're going about it all wrong if they're looking to make converts of people who weren't already in the choir, so to speak.

On the other hand, humans are incredibly stubborn at times, and no matter how good the argument or the arguer, nothing will change their views. There can be no reconciliation of viewpoints with a depressing number of people.

Some may believe they can leave those that will not agree with them in the dust, but the sad truth is that we're stuck with everyone around us. The amount of influence a human being has over the destiny of other human beings is rarely related to how correct they are about anything in particular.

So what do you do if you can't possibly change the minds of a certain percentage of people, and this same percentage of people has a decent amount of social influence?

Much like the meaning of existence, I doubt it's a problem that can be solved.

Or you could simply be very utilitarian about it and state that what people believe matters not, only what they do. If a correct understanding of science enables a better cellphone display, people don't need to believe anything, as long as they collectively decide they want the better cellphone display.

For anyone that views "correct thinking and understanding of science" as a desirable goal though, the utilitarian approach may not be palatable, given that it doesn't allow you to go around looking down on people any longer /s