[bpchaps]

Probably something along the lines of, "If you call them fools, you probably deserve the alienation."

Edit: Read that wrong, but I'll change my answer:

I feel that a large amount of the issues in science and "exclusive knowledge groups" stem from alienation at its root. Exclusivity, obfuscation, lack of publishing, "no true Scotsman", "othering", etc. By calling them fools, you're only contributing to the sorts of alienation that causes these issues to exist.

[progressive_dad]

There are so many issues here I hardly know where to begin. I've made similar arguments myself in the past and you have to be very careful to compartmentalize what you hope to say and accomplish when debating someone directly affected by these issues.

What do you want to accomplish? Do you believe that all the world’s entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations?

Do you believe that the complexity of modern science and the scale of the problems inherently requires increasing specialization and an inherent detachment for modern scientists from the impact of the work in a cultural context? Does that lead us toward a specialization in being a spokesperson for science? Should large institutions feel obligated to create such positions?

Because if you're simply pining for the days of natural philosophers who were statesmen, lawyers, political figures, and leading minds embodied in one person you're at a dead end.

Whatever you do, don't bring up ethics. A required college course wraps up any and all debate on that front!