But I think you have indirectly hit upon the solution.
The rules of good arguments, good logic, and relevant evidence are the points to emphasize and enforce.
So disallow any and all appeals to social proof, and you eliminate the ability for these people to waste everyone else's time.
If someone wants to argue the Earth is 6,000 years old, let them take a couple of cracks at it. But once it's clear they are deviating from the rules of scientific reasoning in science class, make it clear that is the reason for disallowing their arguments and move on.
"We cannot allow academia to be consumed with discussions over whether gravity is a social construction, especially not because right-wing partisans feel that only mostly owning the field of economics means that academia is engaged in conspiracy against them."
Take this sentence, for example. It's not clear at all how the second clause logically follows from the first.
The rules of good arguments, good logic, and relevant evidence are the points to emphasize and enforce.
So disallow any and all appeals to social proof, and you eliminate the ability for these people to waste everyone else's time.
If someone wants to argue the Earth is 6,000 years old, let them take a couple of cracks at it. But once it's clear they are deviating from the rules of scientific reasoning in science class, make it clear that is the reason for disallowing their arguments and move on.
"We cannot allow academia to be consumed with discussions over whether gravity is a social construction, especially not because right-wing partisans feel that only mostly owning the field of economics means that academia is engaged in conspiracy against them."
Take this sentence, for example. It's not clear at all how the second clause logically follows from the first.