FBW, being in a similar game to your f-i-l, while also earning a living in the "real" engineering world and having a treasured life as a pilot, I sometimes think about the different requirements for a successful career in each area. I certainly agree that having to teach a subject sharpens the wits and, when there's fundamental research involved, an open mind on the part of all involved is a pre-requisite for success. Anything that gets in the way of acquisition of knowledge will get the attention of a serious teacher or advisor; one of many impediments is an excessively didactic approach (in the pejorative meaning) on the part of a senior person or organization.
What is clear to me is that, despite what practitioners of any one vocation or profession may think, it really is a case of horses for courses - no-one has all the answers, and we often learn from listening to the questions and insights of others. As this is a conversational forum, let me throw correctness to the wind and observe that in my experience professional pilots hone a regimented and rule-driven approach to aviation and often, I observe, to life in general. This tends to keep us all, as pilots or passengers, alive. I believe that it behoves those of us with careers primarily outside aviation to strive for discipline and professionalism in our flying and, as a small part of that exercise, I enjoy reading and exchanging thoughts on flying with others, in a variety of forums. In doing that, I accept that the material exchanged is usually going to anecdotal and incomplete and, with that in mind, I take the good with the bad and keep the salt cellar at close hand.
In the case of the C182 thread, I was losing the will to live by about the end of the second page and was glad when Mike Hallam and Dave Unwin made some useful points, trying to steer the discussion away from an angels-on-the-point of needle argument. I understand completely that, having once dinged a prop on take-off, Step Turn has a zeal in trying to prevent others suffering the same fate. But like some of the other commentators, I don't believe that means a soft-field take-off is needed or wise under all circumstances. No one in their right mind forces weight on a C182 or any other nose-wheel but, in addition to the type examples mentioned in the thread, there are a number of the VLA/LSA aircraft (some uncertified) in which you don't want to become airborne too soon. Because some of these also have comparatively weak nose-wheels, one has a bit of good technique to practise in anything other than the calmest of conditions. Incidentally, I'm always a bit disappointed in PPRuNe and its denizens that these aircraft receive such scant attention and ill-informed commentary - perhaps an indication that the private flyers need to try that sector a little more?
I don't believe that Step Turn, as the OP, has anything to apologize for in starting the C182 thread but, at the same time, the contrarians' views are entitled to respect. It would be perverse to read what I happen to think was a legitimate observation about the nature of the debate as a personal slight.
Incidentally, I'm not going to use any more column-cm to summarize here the worst aspects of consulting engineers and university professors. The paperback will be out soon, though.