1st place in Derby #284: Double-Take Derby 19, with 275 votes!
People think that science is something abstract and distant from themselves. Something done by super-intelligent specialists in pristine labs somewhere. But "science" is just a system in which repeatable evidence is the criterion by which a hypothesis is proven true or false. To boil it down even further, you could say that science is just a process of demanding evidence to prove or disprove ideas about how the world works.
Now, wouldn't it be nice if you could demand the same level of evidence in everyday conversation? Let's call it "Converscience." Imagine your uncle at the dinner table, going on and on about why higher taxes will ruin the economy, or why the Broncos need to keep the ball on the ground more. If you were engaging in Converscience, you could ask your uncle to back up his claims with evidence.
"Have higher tax rates been associated with lower GDP growth, Uncle Jim?" you could ask, "Do the Broncos achieve more yardage when they run the ball rather than put it in the air? What are the other variables involved and how are they affected?" Your uncle could either provide such evidence or be forced to concede his hypotheses.
Of course, having a family Converscience with a bunch of Nate Silver impersonators might be a bit drier than the usual arguments, but at least opinion would be swayed by facts rather than who can shout the loudest.