> Statistically, someone is going to be right.Yes. If you ask 100 people what the answer to "3 + 5" is, you'll mostly get "8". But that's because you're asking them all for the right answer to the same problem.
If you ask 80 of them the answer to "3 + 5" and 20 the answer to "3 + 2", the right answer isn't 8 and the people who answered 5 for the latter aren't wrong. They are solving different problems.
Given the breadth of computing today, it seems very unlikely to me that all programmers are solving the same problem, and thus that there is a single objective right answer for what language or language paradigm is best. It certainly doesn't align with my own personal experience, where I can't point to a single language that I would prefer for all of the different kinds of programs I've written.
> Debuggers allow this.
Yes, with limitations. A SmallTalker will tell you that debuggers are a pale imitation of the full experience. (I don't have much first-hand experience with it myself, but I know people who get misty-eyed when you ask them about it, despite being very familiar with "modern" debuggers.)
> You generally don't want the user to have this power.
I don't disagree with you personally, but there's a counter-argument that forcibly separating people into "developers" and "users" is itself a moral failing akin to welding the hood shut on a car.
> There is a shocking lack of science in the industry.
I'd like more science too, but I don't find its absence that shocking. PL is very hard and expensive to study scientifically. Doing controlled experiments is very difficult when step one is "Design an entire programming language, implement it and all of its tools and ecosystem, and then get people to spend a long amount of time learning it to proficiency."
That's a lot more difficult than "Take a sip of two sodas and tell me which one you like more", and even that simple experiment turned out to be famously flawed.