So if we are to revisit the question I would have to say the answer is the one who is the least arrogant, can set aside dogma and prejudice and follow the above process in determining whether or not their information is of any value. The problem arises when you have people who refuse to accept any merit in the other camps knowledge base. Worst case scenario, on extreme ends of the spectrum you either you end up implementing completely useless or potentially counterproductive training strategies (bro scientist) or you miss out on important, potentially game changing or essential information (guy with the degree). It's been my experience that the bro scientists usually tend to be the most dogmatic and irrational in their views although there are plenty that are open to a well reasoned argument for or against.
This is the scenario: a guy, say age 21, becomes serious about gaining muscle. He’s 5′ 10″, 7″ wrists, 9″ ankles, average genetics for muscle size-and-proportioned. He’s played sports, but never done more than an occasional resistance workout. Now, he begins a good training-eating-and-resting program. With his genetics, he has the potential for naturally gaining 45 pounds of lean mass if he stays consistent with progressive training/proper eating for a continuous 3 to 4 years.
But, about three months after beginning his training, he starts taking steroids. He does three steroid cycles in the following 18 months, and includes proper post-cycle therapy. That entire time, he’s continuing to consistently train and eat properly. Before the end of two years, he’s gained 45 pounds of lean mass (which with steroids, by the way, is not necessarily typical but neither improbable). At that point, he permanently quits using steroids, but he does continue properly training and eating for another two years. At the end of four years, he carries the same 45 pounds of lean mass.