Humans are fallible, but some humans are massively more fallible than others. Humans lack foresight, but some humans lack a lot more foresight than others. View

Humans are fallible, but some humans are massively more fallible than others. Humans lack foresight, but some humans lack a lot more foresight than others. Viewing humanity as a whole, without respect to local variations in morality and other qualities, over-simplifies things. You have a group of individuals who come across a power that the majority lack, they also happen to be a lot better educated than the average, and their choice is whether to give away the secret of that power. Perhaps they're not well equipped to make that choice, but that's neither here nor there in framing the basic question - and the answer to that question can then be used to form other questions. If they turn out to be ill-equipped to make the choice, then that's at least something that can be worked on. How do you improve the qualities you'd want of a decision maker in this regard? That's a lot more useful, realistic line of thinking to go down than just shrugging and going 'All humans, we should expect the same knowledge and behaviour.' The behaviour you expect of a randomly chosen human should be different to behaviour you expect of a semi-randomly chosen human from a specific subset. Heck, even the arguments you can have - you can't talk about probability with most people, they're not going to understand what you mean when you say 'standard deviation' or anything like that. Most people do not do much thinking. You don't need scientists to be super human. You just need them to be a group you can start asking questions about. Get an angle of attack on the problem through. If they turn out to be average or substandard or whatever in some particular area, then there are ways that can be addressed.