With a beautiful language, there is no way to avoid that vice…
So why did you begin this thread by positing that all scientists think they are better than everyone else rather than asking whether or not some scientific theories had occasionally led to negative results? Because you have to admit that there is rather a lots of ground between those two ideas.
I don’t know what the hell you’re getting at. Because some people (largely philosophers, not scientists) have created scientific theories that ended up being harmful, you now have fair cause to doubt the people who estimated the number of native Americans at contact, and to claim you know better than them? How does that follow? Science has certainly made mistakes, and scientists don’t know everything, but that doesn’t mean you can just fill in the gaps with any old crap you feel like.
Certain mistakes? Many mistakes, I would say. As any other human activity, science suffer from man’s virtue and vices as well.
But yes, we should make a difference between science, scientists and pseudo-scientific philosophers.
And I’ve always thought that smarter is better. :smack:
Thankyou for the correction Mr. Scientist.
After viewing the OP’s comments in this post, I believe I would like to modify my original answer to his query.
I am now quite certain that I am smarter than him. 
I don’t think your chart is accurate. It places computer occupations as the 8th smartest category, which seems unlikely considering:
An entire quartile of that category is below average. And the bottom 10% of “computer occs” is more than one standard deviation below average. There’s plenty of room for outliers on the bottom as well.
That said I don’t think pinguin is particularly dumb. Can’t tell if he’s particularly smart though, what with the language barrier. He’s certainly rather naive and willfully pig-ignorant…
That’s beautiful. Who’s that by? James Joyce?
You must mean Jaime Feliz.