should scientists welcome pseudoscientists to have public discussions about their claims?

Should pseudoscientists' points of view be equally heard? Why or Why not?

What do scientists offer that pseudoscientists cannot offer?

What are the benefits to hearing the claims of pseudoscientists? What is the cost?

In your opinion, do the benefits outweigh the costs?

Using outside references and John Ruscio (2006). Critical Thinking in Psychology; Separating Sense from Nonsense, 2nd ed.