There's no pretense. That's always been the whole point.

That's not my experience -- there's a whole pretense about being experts in a field, which is exactly what the poster above bought into. Having a PhD doesn't make or prove you're an expert about anything. It just proves you know how to do research in a thing, but that doesn't stop us from presenting PhDs in front of juries as if they're the only ones who know what they're talking about.

Self made experts with no PhD or formal degrees are testifying in front of juries. They dont even need any science to back them.

I don't see how these are incompatible. The PhD prepares you to be an independent researcher. The way you prove this is by studying the same topics for a few years, and by the time you reach your viva, you'd be expected to know a lot about the topic you chose.

It's not incompatible, many people in order to do research have to gain a great expertise in a thing. Others can get a Ph.D. having really no expertise at all, but just the ability to get through a research program. Others still can be experts and unable to navigate a research program due to how capricious and political they are. So the pretense is that the Ph.D. is a marker of expertise. It's correlated with expertise, but the actual thing it signals is you've gotten through a research program.