Truth of the argument is independent of the person making it. E.g. "All other parameters being equal, the lift is proportional to velocity squared" is true even if made by IT consultant. "People who fly Airbus are not pilots anymore but mere system operators and it's all FBW fault" is false even when Airbus TRI/TRE says so. Therefore IT people, planespotters et al can and do make valuable contributions to PPRuNe, just not every time they post.
However, notions that there are enough data to predict the exact behaviour of aeroplane in turbulence and that failures leading to FBW degradation can be predicted and we just need more computing power to calculate when they will occur are false. You can play all day with your ANNs and SNNs or whatever but you can not have the meaningful output without the meaningful input. There's no radar or laser or whatever that will tell you how the air ahead of your aeroplane exactly churns and whether you'll get updraft/downdraft/positive windshear/negative windshear. Most of the time you get all of them in quite a short timeframe. Weatherpersons can estimate general area and general strength of the turbulence but even them don't get it right every time.
For example: one of the reasons of A330 switching to Alternate 2 law is loss of rudder pedals transducer. What inputs would you use to feed your computer that gives you "Caution - rudder pedals transducer failure in 5 seconds, prepare for alternate law" alert as its output?