This is something that often happens between scientists and non-scientists.
A scientist with an expertise in the field that comes from years of studying and experience, meets with a non-scientist who has read about the same field on the internet.
- The non-scientist will say something to show how much they know... for example they will say "the second law of thermodynamics means that the universe tends towards disorder".
- The scientist will recognize this as a simplification of the real science and will agree.
True statements are not 'simplifation of 'real science.'' Science is not a body of knowledge/information but a process or set of processes that pursue/promise hope of a certain kind of truth. A true statement is simply true. You might be able to elaborate other details related to it that are also true, but that doesn't make the first statement a simplification of something else.
- Then the non-scientist will continue to talk, this time pushing the simplification too far. They will say something that is a misunderstanding such as... "so this means that life can't evolve to a more complex form (i.e. a living organism) from simpler forms (i.e. molecules).
People can make naive claims and saying they "pushed a simplification too far" doesn't explain why a claim is false. All it does is relate it on the level of aesthetic form to some other fact. E.g. if you try to nail a board and the nail bends, you can say that your hypothesis that a metal nail will penetrate a wooden board was oversimplified from a more complex knowledge of carpentry that realizes there are harder woods and softer metals that result in a nail bending sometimes when hammered. That doesn't make the first claim too simplistic, though. It was just a more general statement that didn't take into consideration the possibility of softer metal and harder wood.
- The scientist will try to explain where the non-scientist is wrong. Now the scientist has real knowledge from years of study that the non-scientist doesn't have.
It doesn't matter. Experienced people still get things wrong, and sometimes, "from the mouths of babes," comes truth.
- The scientist can't use mathematics because the non-scientist doesn't understand that. The scientist can explain what terms like entropy really mean, because the non scientist doesn't have the background.
Entropy is not a mathematical concept. It simple refers to states changing from more organized to less organized due to the tendency for heat to dissipate.
- What the non-scientist has is simplistic, dumbed down philosophical explanations about what terms like "entropy means". And the non-scientists can't see how they are misunderstanding the topic because they don't have the knowledge or background.
What often ends up happening is that the non-scientist relying on simplifications, misunderstandings and things they read on the internet insisting that the real scientist is wrong. The real scientist will sometimes try to be patient and to give a good explanation, but these things are complicated and the non-scientist usually decides to stick with their simple understanding anyway.
This is a frustrating process for scientists. The real solution is for everyone who wants to do science to take the time to get a real education (including the mathematical background).
Of course the scientists (that is institutional scientists) go on advancing the knowledge at the core of semiconductors, and medicine, and space travel, and materials and so many other things. And the non-scientists continue to come up with weird theories and misunderstandings on the internet.
The real problem, in my opinion, is when society doesn't listen to to scientists on matters of science. Scientists don't know everything. But lack of willingness to accept scientific expertise from the experts is a problem when it comes to important scientific questions like climate change, or preventing epidemics, or how to produce enough food.
The problem with everything you posted above is that if the 'scientist' makes a mistake and says something wrong, either because they misunderstood it or because the facts/paradigm is wrong; then there is nothing in this authoritarian logic that can catch and fix the mistake. If you maintained science as a relationship between 'scientists' and 'non-scientists,' then there would be no basis for ever recognizing any truth if it came from a 'non-scientist' or any falsity if it came from a 'scientist.'