GIVES_ZERO_FUCKS_

What is the most ridiculous thing that has happened in the studio?

It's not that their arguments don't have substance, it's that reddit isn't an academic setting and redditors just want to be heard. It's not that they're unqualified or incorrect, it's that they don't know how to interact on this platform in a meaningful way. Like, some of the questions people are asking in this thread can only really be answered with an entire thesis of information. You're pretty much asking to sum up someone's dissertation into a brief comment and then get upset when they can't do it.

Additionally, selection bias. If you're commenting on the subject it's probably because you feel strongly one way or the other. You're not really open to new ideas and this isn't really a discussion as much as it is an opportunity to take a potshot at an expert and it turns into what feels like a congressional hearing. The questions are mostly stupid, repetitive, and have been answered multiple times in different ways.

So intelligent conversations are drowned out by inane banter, may-mays, and shitposts, and then people complain about why the expert didn't bring himself or herself down to everyone else's level. Like, bless their hearts for putting up with you all because honestly, you all suck and deserve each other.

Most, if not all, questions in academia are not cut and dry though. Like, all of the easy questions have been already been answered and the rest require a breadth of knowledge that the average person just doesn't have. What seems like a simple question to you, may actually be a very complex and nuanced one to an expert and vice versa (i.e. the definition of life, is math discovered or invented, etc.). It's not really obfuscation as much as it is your own ignorance when it comes to the subject matter.

We're collectively just a bunch of idiots on the internet, and an expert or researcher in a particular field shouldn't be put on the ropes by simple questions from laymen.

That's the thing though, you don't know the difference between a good answer and a bad answer because by admission, you're not experts. You also don't know when a question is illogical or can't be answered and it feels like Cartman saying "If dolphins are so smart, then why do they live in igloos?" Like, the question makes no sense, and then you get shit for not answering that illogical question.

Immunology. There is always supporting evidence that contradicts supporting evidence or what you might think would be a reasonable answer.

If somebody asks "what is the evidence supporting x?", and they respond with "Here is evidence that clearly doesn't support x.", it doesn't take an expert to see that.

I understand that you don't have to be a helicopter pilot to know that helicopters don't belong in trees, but I think you're giving yourself too much credit for not being able to understand the answers that are being given. Again, it's like a congressional hearing and you're asking questions that just don't make sense or can't be simplified into a yes or no format.

How do I know? Because in an academic setting when you start by asking a question, you usually provide a true statement or data which you then base your question off of and give them some sort of an answer (correct or incorrect) so they know how you want them to answer the question. For example,

"According to Journal X, there are Y number of males and Z number of females in this field. Do you agree with the idea that this is due to [insert current and relevant topic] or that it could be due to extraneous factor N?"

You provide the evidence and your own stance, and they either agree or refute it. Usually, when a 'layman' is trying to trip you up with a 'simple question', what you do is drown that person in jargon in front of everyone. It's because they want an oversimplified answer to a complex question so that they can disagree with the oversimplified answer for being oversimplified.