Where that falls down is where a person’s belief is clearly irrational, where their attachment to an idea is emotional. There are those who believe in homoeopathy even when they know what is involved in homoeopathy. In that case, no rational argument will convince that person. In that case, sarcasm and ridicule are valuable tools to expose the nonsense contained in that idea to those less familiar with what is involved with homoeopathy.

If a person can think rationally, then she can make up her own mind about things by investigation. In that case a discussion of evidence should suffice. If we have a disagreement, then the communication could consist of an exchange of evidence (perhaps various experimental results). We could then discuss implications and reach an understanding– perhaps I understand why the person thinks differently about the subject than I do- perhaps we reach an agreement as to how to think.
An example of this might be the various ways people interpret the basic experiments of physics (quantum mechanics). I can understand why someone might like the ‘many-worlds’ over the ‘copenhagen’ interpretation- but those people might just agree to disagree…

If the point is to get a person to accept certain things– then independent thought gets in the way. That person could be indoctrinated into the correct idea. This can be done through ridicule, intimidation, legal threats, and so forth.
This can take the form of demanding one agree with a certain position in order to graduate from school, for example.

The question becomes real in this way– what happens if a rational person looks at the data and decides to write something like “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Concept of Nature is Almost Certainly False” as Thomas Nagel has done?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0199919755/discoveryinsti06//Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755/

Would you opt for the person to continue to think for himself and draw conclusions based on his study and understanding or would you demand he agree with you?

If one knows the goal of the communication, then one can match the style of communication to that intended goal.

I would suggest if the goal is rational thought- then the conclusions must be left to the individual and the communication should be factual and about evidence.
If the goal is to indoctrinate into certain positions, then the use of sarcasm, ridicule, intimidation, and legal threat comes into play.

At least that how it looks to me.

Frankly, I have a very low tolerance for alternative medical viewpoints as I find it difficult to reconcile the fact that people think it’s okay to insult my intelligence by insisting that the magic medical fairy is the only one to trust, whilst referring to dissenting viewpoints as naive.

It becomes exponentially more offensive when people insist that they will treat their children with the same magic medical fairy.

In personal life, I tend to just ask a few challenging questions and try to hide my contempt before agreeing to disagree. A little gentle ridicule within the conversation doesn’t make me the most popular person, however I feel ridiculed by having to listen to some people’s opinions. If they’re met with a gentle, but slightly embarrassing situation when airing their views, then at least they might think twice before attempting to preach to the next unsuspecting victim.

If I’m still annoyed, I’ll write a scathing blog post whilst arming myself with a few more facts for the next time someone decides I need to be educated about reiki healing or homeopathy .

In fact the new Health Secretary in the UK thinks that homeopathy works.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100179258/jeremy-hunt-health-secretary-thinks-homeopathy-works/

I can feel another blog post coming on!

LS

“The key is that there needs to be a very strong truth element to the sarcasm.That’s what makes it so compelling. (It’s funny because it’s true ).”

I thought that this comment was more consistent with satire than sarcasm. I agree with the implication of your response about when each is best used

This can entice them to craft more sensational headlines as well as take more opinionated stances. Inducing a strong emotional reaction in readers is very good at getting more page views. It doesn’t have to be a strong positive one either, negative reactions and controversy can often be more effective at getting people to click through.

This fact is easily manipulated by people seeking to promote their cause, on the SGU you talked about the guys who posted images of the fake Apple screws. Many prominent blogs picked it up because it tapped into an existing controversy over how Apple designs it’s products and makes modifying and upgrading them difficult and made an easy headline sure to draw many clicks.

It seems that like you say some skeptical outlets are not immune to these same driving forces.