There is a huge blind spot in the vision of these academics, who start off thinking they are so vastly superior to the mere plebes, that they cannot conceive a different viewpoint can even exist. When this alternate point of view is detected, it must be ridiculed and denied in every way, as “unscientific” and “illogical”, just to keep the underclass in its place.
And yet, the very basis of science and logic, is that everything SHOULD be subject to re-examination, that there is no such thing as “settled science” or “irrefutable logic”. Troublesome things like facts keep popping up that explode all the hypotheses and axioms.
Agreed. IMHO, it's based on fragile superiority. The academics believe they are superior, all while fearing in the backs of their minds that they're really not superior. The slightest crack in their assumed greatness will show that their "intelligence" is a house of cards.
Of course, I'm talking about the stereotypical liberal arts style academics (with exceptions in some areas like business schools). Many of the math and hard science style academics aren't like that. My favorite computer science instructors were the ones with only masters degrees (thus taught only undergrad). They openly stated that they didn't want to get PhD's because they didn't want to spend all of their time writing papers and being part of the blah blah blah when they'd rather focus on teaching the next generation of programmers, in honor of their own teachers.