Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If scientists weren't so arrogant, they might realize that if we're spending years studying something it might be a bit more complex than a shovel. If some programmers weren't so arrogant, they might realize that terrible code that doesn't follow any best practices and is completely unmaintainable solves a lot of day-to-day problems in many many fields/businesses. The beauty of programming and the spread of knowled…
I think you're getting angry about something I never said. I'm well aware that terrible code solves many problems out there. Yes, it's great that people are able to use code to solve problems without being experts. It's also true that their code could be even better if they learned a bit more. Just because people can do the basic level of something (it's great that they can!) doesn't mean the field is easy or useless…
Actually, the shovel analogy is quite accurate after tweaking a little.
"Just because people can do the basic level of digging holes in ground doesn't mean the field is easy or useless".
Operating an overgrown shovel called "excavator" is not an easy task and requires plenty of training to do it well, yet it's but a tool. And we would still need all the knowledge from civil engineering (totally separate field, though "engineering", not "science") to make any substantially larger or deeper hole in the ground.
All this doesn't make digging holes useful on its own.
It helps to sometimes look from this angle at programming and computer science.