This is merely ONE of the character flaws in the collective scientific psyche, but it does indicate that something is wrong. Science is a sub-culture of particular beliefs and behaviours whose strengths are also its weaknesses. Specialized knowledge is an elite occupation, but we live in a democratic culture. Too many scientists behave as if they can intimidate the rest of us into acknowledging and revering their intellectual superiority. I am not trying to personally deny any of these claims, but rather to simply clarify that ANY such claims include social as well as natural philosophy.
Ideas are weapons in the fight for hearts and minds.
These are the kinds of questions which ONLY a systems view of science is equipped to tackle. In order for science to have a future, scientists need to strategize about their sub-culture, and its relationship to the larger global culture. Instead, what Carl gives us is an appreciation of the benefits that science has conferred upon humanity in general, and himself in particular. This approach is presumably meant to be inspirational, but the author's tone of pained self-righteousness is unlikely to win very many hearts or minds. No liability for the implications or consequences of its use may be attributed to the author.