Is it a scientist's responsibility to correct people when they say things that are factually wrong?

Krishna: 

This is the situation I face day in and day out.

I, as a highly qualified person of science, have to deal with people who are unaware of several things. They live in a world that has only a partial picture. They can’t see what I see.

That becomes dangerous sometimes. Even if you tell them why this is so, they don’t seem to understand because that goes against their comprehension of the world. Some people simply refuse to even consider it.

People form opinions based on emotions, such as fear, contempt and anger, rather than relying on facts. New facts often do not change people’s minds.

Being presented with facts that suggest their current beliefs are wrong causes people to feel threatened. This reaction is particularly strong when the beliefs in question are aligned with their political and personal, and group identities. It can feel like an attack on them if one of their strongly held beliefs is challenged.

Confronting facts that don’t line up with your worldview may trigger a “backfire effect,” which can end up strengthening your original position and beliefs, particularly with politically charged issues. Researchers have identified this phenomenon in a number of studies, including ones about opinions toward climate change mitigation policies and attitudes toward childhood vaccinations.

For many people, a challenge to their worldview feels like an attack on their personal identity and can cause them to harden their position.

It is very hard to change someone’s mind and behaviours when they encounter new information that runs counter to their beliefs.

There’s another cognitive bias that can get in the way of changing your mind, called confirmation bias. It’s the natural tendency to seek out information or interpret things in a way that supports your existing beliefs. Interacting with like-minded people and media reinforces confirmation bias. The problem with confirmation bias is that it can lead to errors in judgment because it keeps you from looking at a situation objectively from multiple angles.

Some don’t know the difference between an opinion and an evidence based fact.

I am a woman and that makes things even more difficult while dealing with Chauvinistic men.

Motivated perception is another thing we face while stating facts.

Also cognitive dissonance, or the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts simultaneously plays a role and makes people reject things that don't make them comfortable processing them. Then people spin-doctor facts to fit preconceived beliefs to reduce dissonance.

But still I try this everyday because I think after several encounters with facts, some people might atleast consider them .

Removing opposition will make these irrational things more strong. Whether people change their minds or not is not the question here. We should give chance to people to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong by putting both sides of the debate on equal terms before them. It’s better for experts to appear whenever and wherever spurious claims are raised, to immediately refute and dismiss them. Refusing to work in the area creates a void where others who don't agree with the scientific consensus will fill those positions and create chaos.
If scientific experts refuse to engage with “scientifically bankrupt” arguments, this could send a more potent message: that the fringe claims are irrelevant, not even worth wasting the time to refute. So this would mean they shouldn’t engage with this kind of popular science story.
The scientists' refusal to engage could be re-framed to characterise the experts as remote, arrogant or even afraid, casting doubt on the veracity of the scientific position. So to avoid this impression, experts should engage. (1)

Yes, I do correct people, whether they like it or not.

I think knowing some facts and keeping quiet even if the world is suffering because of ignorance and misconceptions is the most destructive thing one can do to the society one lives in. It doesn't matter if people think I am arrogant or argumentative. I am going to put the facts before people. I am going to make them think. It is up to them to decide what to do next with the facts I bring to their view. (2)

Footnotes:

1. Why it is difficult for scientists to debate controversial issues w...
2. The most difficult part of science communication