Absolutely. It's pretty infuriating when nerds completely dismiss advanced degrees as "meaningless credentials", yet in my experience they're far more apt to do this than the general population. Most people are deferential to experience and higher education, but nerds seem to actively reject the notion.
In particular, I love how commenters on HN will unhesitatingly dismiss any peer-reviewed, published scientific paper with a dismissive sneer, and the comment that "correlation doesn't equal causation," as if they were the only people on earth to whom this axiom had been communicated, and that the scientific establishment was completely unaware of statistics, untrained in even the most basic aspects of hypothesis testing.
I think generally those responses on HN are directed more at the sensationalist reporting by those journalists/bloggers who have even less expertise in the subject matter than your average Science/Engineering degree holder. This is completely justified when the article under discussion draws conclusions, citing a peer-reviewed, published scientific paper, that are simply not supported by the authors of the paper.
Obviously there are examples in the other direction as well, but I dont see it as a common problem on HN.
Also its worth noting, that the more difficult it is to grasp the subject matter of a paper, the less likely it is that peer reviewers are actually reviewing it any better than a common reader. Evidenced by the multitude of papers in the recent past that have been discredited as academically dishonest to fraud, and the hilarious meta-studies slipping computer generated gibberish through journal review processes.
"the more difficult it is to grasp the subject matter of a paper, the less likely it is that peer reviewers are actually reviewing it any better than a common reader."
Sorry, but no.
Papers are reviewed by researchers who are intimately familiar with the subject and techniques used in the paper under review. Journal editors don't give papers to people who are incapable of reviewing them. That would be dumb.
"...evidenced by the multitude of papers in the recent past that have been discredited as academically dishonest to fraud, and the hilarious meta-studies slipping computer generated gibberish through journal review processes."
You're exaggerating. Out of the thousands and thousands of peer-reviewed articles that are published each year, a small handful are later shown to be fraudulent. Overall, peer review has a pretty great track record.
I did not say that the reviewers were generally incapable of properly reviewing papers, I said that they are less likely to. While most have only the best intentions, those who are capable of subjecting research to proper scrutiny tend to be extremely busy with their own projects as well, especially considering the short time frame they often have for review. The default is to assume that if it passes the lowest threshold for academic rigour (slightly higher than the crackpot test), and conforms to certain practices which vary by field, it is publishable.
I was exaggerating, and for the most part respected journals are of high quality. That does not necessarily have anything to do with the review process. I tend to believe it has more to do with the character of those who choose to do such research (without other significant monetary motivations than the long-shot that what they're working on may produce marketable results).
Regardless, I would not suggest that the review process is not useful and necessary, as it is the best system we have, and works well for the most part given the dynamics of the system it exists in. I simply wanted to point out that it is very far from perfect or provably reliable (I'd argue most academically dishonest research slips through as not notable enough to warrant particular scrutiny anyway and fades into obscurity without question) and that it is vulnerable to gaming by sufficiently knowledgeable people.
Well, that got me off topic without even being the main thrust of my original post. Hit a nerve and started rambling. apologies if my comments came out more critical than I actually feel.
In particular, I love how commenters on HN will unhesitatingly dismiss any peer-reviewed, published scientific paper with a dismissive sneer, and the comment that "correlation doesn't equal causation," as if they were the only people on earth to whom this axiom had been communicated, and that the scientific establishment was completely unaware of statistics, untrained in even the most basic aspects of hypothesis testing.