Would that it were so! When it comes to really pervasive and established high-status delusional beliefs, with very few exceptions, what you'll get is at best a criticism whose content is far below the usual scholarly standards, and at worst just mindless sneering and moral indignation.

Would you argue that this consists of people "asking what's the harm" rather than "criticizing your argument"? I never said that they would criticize your argument well.

In many cases, high-status delusional beliefs don't result in a single identifiable disaster, but rather in lots of widely distributed harm and suffering. (In this sense, the Titanic analogy breaks down.)

The point stands. Low-status beliefs come in clear pockets with clear examples. Widely distributed harm and suffering usually has the property that you can't blame any single instance of suffering on it.

Not really. It depends on the exact way the belief in question is perceived in high-status circles. In some cases, you'll win status points out of all proportion with the actual importance of the problem and without much scrutiny of the accuracy of your arguments (the phrase "raising awareness" comes to mind). In other cases, you won't register on high-status people's radar even if you have a solid case, simply because the issue doesn't happen to be a status-fertile cause. In yet other cases, it may happen that while a belief is low-status, it is also considered uncouth to attack it all-out; one is supposed to scoff at it in more subtle and oblique ways instead.

Indeed, there are many possible responses. "likely" was not intended to mean "overwhelmingly probable". It's just a likely occurrence.