Welcome back to "Doggerel," where I ramble on about words and phrases that are misused, abused, or just plain meaningless.
One of the things that greatly annoys me about a lot of television shows and movies is when they treat scientific progress as if it was caused by intelligence alone. It's not. Science takes a lot of hard work as well as the luck involved in being around the latest ideas. Having a big brain helps, but it doesn't cover everything.
Big brains or not, scientists are humans just like the rest of us. That's one of the founding principles of science: Anyone can make mistakes. Scientists aren't prophets, mystic seers, or dictators of epistemology. Raw intelligence isn't a substitute for the scientific method.
I can say I have a better grasp of quantum mechanics than Albert Einstein did. It's not because I think I'm smarter than he was: It's because I'm typing on something that Einstein thought was impossible: The transistors in my laptop rely on QM being correct to operate, and Einstein denied QM because it didn't fit his sense of aesthetics.
Einstein was a brilliant person, but he was still human, and he allowed his desire for an orderly, deterministic universe to outweigh his ability to accept the evidence, the conclusions others drew from it, and the successful predictions they were able to make as a result.
That's why arguing about intelligence is a meaningless subject change: Science is about evidence and the logic we use to form conclusions and predictions from that evidence. If a weak link in a scientist's chain of thought uses a logical fallacy, it doesn't take a genius to break the whole thing.