Ksihkehe - You've hit on a couple very interesting topics (to me anyway). Very relevant in the current times as well.
I've talked about this very subject on numerous occasions over on ATS with Arbitrager (among others) in the science forums. Specifically, the subject is, the output of many of the 'paper mills' they call higher education today, particularly science (or pseudo-science as it were). I have long been critical of this. I will stop short of saying some of what I see shames me (but between you, me and the Internet, it really does...sssshhhh, don't tell anyone though). My background is what I will call "classical physics" (now), a background filled with empirical research, scientific experimentation and backed up by truckloads of high-order mathematics. In the 'old days' "classical" used to mean outdated or proven wrong. Today, it means...'empirical research, scientific experimentation and backed up by truckloads of high-order mathematics'. Today, anything and everything, any wild or wacko thing someone can come up with can be 'proven' simply by inserting the word "quantum" in front of it. In politics we talk about 'whataboutism', well many modern science discussions go that same way today, except what follows "what about?" now are words diversionary words like "string theory", "entanglement" and my absolute nemesis, "uncertainty principle". Basically, you can explain virtually anything with these three terms and no one can ever argue! Why? Because it's utopia, pure and simple...just like people's perception of societal goals today. In other words, it's just not possible, but no one cares. Quantum physics now serves as an 'excuse' for everyone to claim they are brilliant. Worse, it seems to make people feel they have license to 'pontificate' on all manner of physical principles without the need to apply any...empirical research, scientific experimentation and backed up by truckloads of high-order mathematics. In short, much of it is a joke. I could go into more of why here, but I would be digressing; that's not really the point.
BTW - I don't mean to suggest quantum physics isn't real, it absolutely is. However, what quantum physics has turned into today is people's 'excuse' to get them out of a debate when they get backed into a corner scientifically or mathematically. I don't think a day goes by where I don't hear some fantastical claim about "quantum computing". My gawd, why stop there?? Why limit yourself to a physical box in an equipment rack when you can conjure up some omnipotent cyborg with shapeshifting ability and unlimited compute power??? It's endless. Yet it happens every single day. Quantum physics really is a valid area of research, but to some it is just an excuse to stop learning anything further. Those aren't 'scientists'...they're bullshitters. Sorry, but it's true.
I point this out because you seemed to touch on a very similar and related theme. Many 'science' discussions today are really more 'philosophical' discussions from people who can't back that philosophy up with facts. There were a couple people on ATS who used to do this on a regular basis, and I frequently pointed this out. Arbitrager was usually right there with me in this vein. I think some of those people's heart was in the right place, but their perception of their own knowledge far exceeded that of reality...because quantum physics (almost exclusively).
Okay, I'll get off my 'quantum' soapbox now. I wanted to also address another theme you made in your post which I also thought was very good. This was the notion of self-perception of intelligence. You cited a couple examples, but I want to illustrate this a different way. My sister, BIL and nephew are all PhD's, and all professors at the collegiate level. My BIL (who has now passed) was the Dean of Economics at a major NY university. Oh boy, did we have some interesting debates! I could probably summarize some of those discussions simply by restating the oft used phrase...'Those who can't DO, teach'. Sadly, it's true. This is not to say he was not a 'smart' guy, he absolutely was, but his perception of his intelligence made him believe that his intelligence afforded him the ability to be an 'expert' on everything...and he was far from that. So, sometimes simply being 'smart' (book-smart in reality) gets used as a shield to defend egos, and those egos are often way overinflated because there are so few people who can call "bullshit" on whatever they are saying. Or worse, those same few can be brow-beaten into submission with some exalted framed shingle on a wall. Being related to not one, but three of these types gives one unique insight into how they operate. Oh, and they band together when they get in over their heads too! But then there's FCD, the dumb cowhand from Wyoming who, like a bulldog, doesn't back down from anything when he knows he's got 'em on the run intellectually (or any other way). LOL! They never see that one coming! Of course, I love them all dearly; I just know how they roll and it's fun to put them in their place sometimes when they get too full of themselves. So, bottom line, there is some truth in what you are saying with respect to some 'science' existing simply because nobody has the wherewithal to overcome some of these academics in their own self-idolatry. But that is not 'science', it is pure ego.
When you couple both of these themes together you start to see a natural outcome coalescing. One might even go as far as calling it confirmation bias. And, it's true...many times...but not always. I'm going to digress for just a brief moment with kind of an example of this coalescence. I once got into an economics discussion with my BIL (risky territory, akin to arguing with God about Moses and all). The discussion started off simply...by me 'dumbing' things down. There was a man, a wife, a chicken and a customer (another person). (My ultimate goal was to get him to admit that socialism doesn't work long term). This other person had a skill. Voila', a barter system emerged. Other person provides a skill, and chicken owner provides an egg. Real simple. (Gotta' keep things simple with these academics sometimes because they love to confuse everything with outrageously complex scenarios and fancy words to illustrate their (far) superior intellect. Also serves their purpose when they start to lose an argument later; gives them escape routes).
We carefully scaled this model up to include things like international trade, GDP's, deficits, population, borrowing and inflation. I wrote everything down as we went, and confirmed his complete concurrence on each agreed to item along the way (even agreed on the fancy words. Dumb cowhands (with Engineering Physics degrees) can do fancy words too!). Then I injected a socialist economy into the mix, basically over the top of the original man, wife and chicken. Now it was time to work backwards through our list as this elaborate economy, piece by piece, unraveled. About halfway down the list, Phil (my BIL) could see where we were headed...and the fact that he wasn't winning, and wouldn't win. But there was no arguing; everything was written down and agreed upon. (He was not happy). First came the "Buts", then the even bigger fancy words suggesting I'd missed details (rejoined with equally fancy words proving we'd missed nothing). Now it was time to pull rank. 'But...but...you're not a college professor and I am' (probably not exact words, but that was the gist of it). 'Well, you can't engineer, construct and fly an airplane...but I can and DO! So...Touche!" I think at one point there was an attempt to excuse himself from the debate to take care of some "errands" which required his personal attention. In the end, Phil said..."Stop! And that's why we don't live in a socialist country!"...as if he'd been in agreement with me all along. LOL! I didn't dwell on the fact that he'd started from the completely opposite point of view. That was his ego-parachute, and I knew it, and I'm pretty confident he knew I knew it (but he would never admit it as long as he had a pulse).
Getting him to admit defeat and then clubbing him with the victory wasn't my goal. But preventing him from prevailing by using any of the usual bag of tricks academics often use to justify their conclusions absolutely WAS my goal. I don't think I need to tell you about the smirk of satisfaction on my face after that debate. Sorry, I digress; just a fun story illustrating some of my points above.
Lastly, science should never be a "final answer" endeavor. The very nature of science is to continuously challenge established norms. Yes, 1+1=2, but what if I said I can prove, using mathematics, that 1+1=1 (and, even that 1+1=0). Almost without exception a discussion like this ends with your opponent saying..."well, you just can't do that" (meaning they take exception to some basic principle such as division by zero, or exponential equivalency (two different methods)). But the true 'final answer' in reality is..."Why not? Prove to me why we can't do that. Yes, that is the accepted norm, but you can't prove it other than by saying it violates accepted arithmetical norms and would mess up 2,000 years of accepted history". That's not empirical proof.
Note: I am not advocating this train of thought specifically, I merely use it to illustrate a point. (Don't want anyone running off screaming..."FCD is off on a crusade to prove 1=0!!!"...from the rootops)
Edit to add: One last thought. The people I referred to above who love to initiate what I termed as philosophical discussions under the guise of saying they were scientific love to throw out there as a first line of defense when called on it..."But, but...isn't the whole point of science to imagine new things and think outside the box??? That's all I'm doing!!" Yes, this is the fundamental point, but the people who say this are missing 'the point'. At that stage it shouldn't be termed 'science'. It should be termed what it is...'some cool blue-sky stuff I dreamed up this morning while reading Popular Mechanics and taking a dump.'
I've talked about this very subject on numerous occasions over on ATS with Arbitrager (among others) in the science forums. Specifically, the subject is, the output of many of the 'paper mills' they call higher education today, particularly science (or pseudo-science as it were). I have long been critical of this. I will stop short of saying some of what I see shames me (but between you, me and the Internet, it really does...sssshhhh, don't tell anyone though). My background is what I will call "classical physics" (now), a background filled with empirical research, scientific experimentation and backed up by truckloads of high-order mathematics. In the 'old days' "classical" used to mean outdated or proven wrong. Today, it means...'empirical research, scientific experimentation and backed up by truckloads of high-order mathematics'. Today, anything and everything, any wild or wacko thing someone can come up with can be 'proven' simply by inserting the word "quantum" in front of it. In politics we talk about 'whataboutism', well many modern science discussions go that same way today, except what follows "what about?" now are words diversionary words like "string theory", "entanglement" and my absolute nemesis, "uncertainty principle". Basically, you can explain virtually anything with these three terms and no one can ever argue! Why? Because it's utopia, pure and simple...just like people's perception of societal goals today. In other words, it's just not possible, but no one cares. Quantum physics now serves as an 'excuse' for everyone to claim they are brilliant. Worse, it seems to make people feel they have license to 'pontificate' on all manner of physical principles without the need to apply any...empirical research, scientific experimentation and backed up by truckloads of high-order mathematics. In short, much of it is a joke. I could go into more of why here, but I would be digressing; that's not really the point.
BTW - I don't mean to suggest quantum physics isn't real, it absolutely is. However, what quantum physics has turned into today is people's 'excuse' to get them out of a debate when they get backed into a corner scientifically or mathematically. I don't think a day goes by where I don't hear some fantastical claim about "quantum computing". My gawd, why stop there?? Why limit yourself to a physical box in an equipment rack when you can conjure up some omnipotent cyborg with shapeshifting ability and unlimited compute power??? It's endless. Yet it happens every single day. Quantum physics really is a valid area of research, but to some it is just an excuse to stop learning anything further. Those aren't 'scientists'...they're bullshitters. Sorry, but it's true.
I point this out because you seemed to touch on a very similar and related theme. Many 'science' discussions today are really more 'philosophical' discussions from people who can't back that philosophy up with facts. There were a couple people on ATS who used to do this on a regular basis, and I frequently pointed this out. Arbitrager was usually right there with me in this vein. I think some of those people's heart was in the right place, but their perception of their own knowledge far exceeded that of reality...because quantum physics (almost exclusively).
Okay, I'll get off my 'quantum' soapbox now. I wanted to also address another theme you made in your post which I also thought was very good. This was the notion of self-perception of intelligence. You cited a couple examples, but I want to illustrate this a different way. My sister, BIL and nephew are all PhD's, and all professors at the collegiate level. My BIL (who has now passed) was the Dean of Economics at a major NY university. Oh boy, did we have some interesting debates! I could probably summarize some of those discussions simply by restating the oft used phrase...'Those who can't DO, teach'. Sadly, it's true. This is not to say he was not a 'smart' guy, he absolutely was, but his perception of his intelligence made him believe that his intelligence afforded him the ability to be an 'expert' on everything...and he was far from that. So, sometimes simply being 'smart' (book-smart in reality) gets used as a shield to defend egos, and those egos are often way overinflated because there are so few people who can call "bullshit" on whatever they are saying. Or worse, those same few can be brow-beaten into submission with some exalted framed shingle on a wall. Being related to not one, but three of these types gives one unique insight into how they operate. Oh, and they band together when they get in over their heads too! But then there's FCD, the dumb cowhand from Wyoming who, like a bulldog, doesn't back down from anything when he knows he's got 'em on the run intellectually (or any other way). LOL! They never see that one coming! Of course, I love them all dearly; I just know how they roll and it's fun to put them in their place sometimes when they get too full of themselves. So, bottom line, there is some truth in what you are saying with respect to some 'science' existing simply because nobody has the wherewithal to overcome some of these academics in their own self-idolatry. But that is not 'science', it is pure ego.
When you couple both of these themes together you start to see a natural outcome coalescing. One might even go as far as calling it confirmation bias. And, it's true...many times...but not always. I'm going to digress for just a brief moment with kind of an example of this coalescence. I once got into an economics discussion with my BIL (risky territory, akin to arguing with God about Moses and all). The discussion started off simply...by me 'dumbing' things down. There was a man, a wife, a chicken and a customer (another person). (My ultimate goal was to get him to admit that socialism doesn't work long term). This other person had a skill. Voila', a barter system emerged. Other person provides a skill, and chicken owner provides an egg. Real simple. (Gotta' keep things simple with these academics sometimes because they love to confuse everything with outrageously complex scenarios and fancy words to illustrate their (far) superior intellect. Also serves their purpose when they start to lose an argument later; gives them escape routes).
We carefully scaled this model up to include things like international trade, GDP's, deficits, population, borrowing and inflation. I wrote everything down as we went, and confirmed his complete concurrence on each agreed to item along the way (even agreed on the fancy words. Dumb cowhands (with Engineering Physics degrees) can do fancy words too!). Then I injected a socialist economy into the mix, basically over the top of the original man, wife and chicken. Now it was time to work backwards through our list as this elaborate economy, piece by piece, unraveled. About halfway down the list, Phil (my BIL) could see where we were headed...and the fact that he wasn't winning, and wouldn't win. But there was no arguing; everything was written down and agreed upon. (He was not happy). First came the "Buts", then the even bigger fancy words suggesting I'd missed details (rejoined with equally fancy words proving we'd missed nothing). Now it was time to pull rank. 'But...but...you're not a college professor and I am' (probably not exact words, but that was the gist of it). 'Well, you can't engineer, construct and fly an airplane...but I can and DO! So...Touche!" I think at one point there was an attempt to excuse himself from the debate to take care of some "errands" which required his personal attention. In the end, Phil said..."Stop! And that's why we don't live in a socialist country!"...as if he'd been in agreement with me all along. LOL! I didn't dwell on the fact that he'd started from the completely opposite point of view. That was his ego-parachute, and I knew it, and I'm pretty confident he knew I knew it (but he would never admit it as long as he had a pulse).
Getting him to admit defeat and then clubbing him with the victory wasn't my goal. But preventing him from prevailing by using any of the usual bag of tricks academics often use to justify their conclusions absolutely WAS my goal. I don't think I need to tell you about the smirk of satisfaction on my face after that debate. Sorry, I digress; just a fun story illustrating some of my points above.
Lastly, science should never be a "final answer" endeavor. The very nature of science is to continuously challenge established norms. Yes, 1+1=2, but what if I said I can prove, using mathematics, that 1+1=1 (and, even that 1+1=0). Almost without exception a discussion like this ends with your opponent saying..."well, you just can't do that" (meaning they take exception to some basic principle such as division by zero, or exponential equivalency (two different methods)). But the true 'final answer' in reality is..."Why not? Prove to me why we can't do that. Yes, that is the accepted norm, but you can't prove it other than by saying it violates accepted arithmetical norms and would mess up 2,000 years of accepted history". That's not empirical proof.
Note: I am not advocating this train of thought specifically, I merely use it to illustrate a point. (Don't want anyone running off screaming..."FCD is off on a crusade to prove 1=0!!!"...from the rootops)
Edit to add: One last thought. The people I referred to above who love to initiate what I termed as philosophical discussions under the guise of saying they were scientific love to throw out there as a first line of defense when called on it..."But, but...isn't the whole point of science to imagine new things and think outside the box??? That's all I'm doing!!" Yes, this is the fundamental point, but the people who say this are missing 'the point'. At that stage it shouldn't be termed 'science'. It should be termed what it is...'some cool blue-sky stuff I dreamed up this morning while reading Popular Mechanics and taking a dump.'