This was a very incisive statement. First, sola scriptura is in itself not scriptural; all it is, is a self-serving attempt of various failed theologians to get from under the authority of the Church in reading the Scripture, much like amateur science is done outside of the academia for fear of professional criticism.
Second, the scripture is not read by the prooftexters, period. Isolated verses are taken out of context -- both historical and literal context, -- and slapped together to fit one theological speculation or another. Often the context shows the meaning that is the exact opposite of what the quote is intended by the prooftexter to prove. For example, the oft-quoted "all scripture is profitable" from Timothy actually says that a bishop of the Church, having received the Holy Spirit through the sacramental laying of the hands, can use the scripture in a salutary fashion as a complement to the oral instruction. Even the quote alone, outside of the context of the entire letter, does not say that the scripture is sufficient, -- yet it is brazenly quoted as if it does.
It would be much easier on everyone if the Protestant prooftexters dropped their habit of dragging along into every conversation scores of single-liners from the scripture that they do not understand, and instead quoted something that at least amounts to a complete thought from Calvin, Luther, and Spurgeon.
That would be a good start.
much like amateur science is done outside of the academia for fear of professional criticism.
I wish you had chosen a different analogy. Much first-rate science has been done outside academia. For example, Einstein wrote his paper on special relativity when he was working as a postal clerk. He indead received much criticism from academia, but it was academia that was wrong.
Benjamin Franklin was a brilliant scientist. His experiments on electricity were ground-breaking. Academics took notice and adopted his terms for electric charge--positive and negative.
Many other examples exist. I would recommend finding another analogy to support your argument. But I very much agree with your main point.