I like Albert Einstein's take on it better: The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

The problem you mention is just one of many, but, YES, I agree, it is a current problem. ... "while great minds think alike, fools seldom differ" ...

Well I have to agree with the "stupid being cocksure" part, but I know alot of intelligent people and I don't find that many of them to be full of doubt, just not listened to.

Yes, unfortunately, I tend to think so. And I am not a fan of Bertrand.

When doubt is conquered, ignorance is invincible. The problem with the world is only the first part of that - that so many people are "cocksure", absolutely certain that they know things when they don't. They don't ask questions, and they refuse to think critically. They don't love truth enough to keep inquiring even if it means abandoning their cherished beliefs, and they don't fear error enough to avoid adopting all manner of those "cherished" beliefs. Doubt, or rather, reserving one's judgement, and making sure one is in a perpetual state of inquiry on all things, is the highest, and most intellectually honest way of being for people. Only people who don't understand the skeptical mindset would ever say that a problem is that "the intelligent are so full of doubt". An example of this folly is something in recent events. The Large Hadron Collider (or LHC), the largest and most powerful particle accelerator ever built, is being stalled for investigation out of fears that it might generate microscopic black holes and strange matter that could destroy Earth. The LHC promises to create conditions closer to the Big Bang than we've ever been able to observe before, and answer some important questions about theoretical physics. Scientists prediced the possibility of microscopic black holes, but they also calculated an astronomically low probability that they could ever be a threat (much worse than winning a lottery a few times), and similarly for strange matter and other threats. The scientists also are honest in realizing that their theories may still be in adequate, but they have plenty of reason to believe that there is no threat. The "problem" is that scientists don't like to talk in terms of absolute "yes" and "no", but only in terms of probabilities. If scientists were intellectually dishonest and turned a ridiculously small chance into a "no" for the general public (the stupid and cocksure), they'd have far less of a problem. It's not that they are "so full of doubt", but that the stupid and cocksure make them look like that by comparison.

Beautiful..

sounds like it