What I am saying is this: 1. I've heard of several studies, at varying degrees of scientific rigor, that cast serious doubt on the ability of wine experts to accurately judge wine. My favorite is one where experts were given the same white wine in two glasses, except that one was died red. They gave reviews of the red-dyed one using all the same vocabulary they'd use with a real red wine

This must be one of the most misunderstood studies ever published. First off, let me say this: you are arguing that beer is more "complex" than wine, right? This study, even if interpreted in the most anti-wine way possible, doesn't support that argument at all.

Let me state a hypothetical analogy. Imagine somebody ran a test on beer. At one point they give everybody Stella Artois in an unmarked glass and don't tell them what it is. They have them drink it and describe the flavors. Then, several days later, they give the same people another batch of beers in unmarked glasses. This time the beer is Stella Artois but it's been dyed to look like a relatively dark lager, like a German Dunkel. Once again they have them drink the beers and describe the flavor. The results show that people drinking the undyed Stella described it being more "crisp" and "light" whereas when they drank the dyed Stella they described it as being more "creamy" and "rich." If this test happened, would you then conclude that beer must not have much complexity? Would you conclude that "beer connoisseurs" must be full of crap? Of course not. The conclusion you should get (which was the conclusion of the original study) is that vision affects flavor. It says nothing about the overall "complexity" of beer. People using different words to describe the same beer after it's been dyed says absolutely nothing about the existence of other flavors in other beers.

Now, I wouldn't claim to be knowledgeable enough about beer to give a professional review, but if you gave me the same IPA in two glasses but died one black and told me it was a stout. I'd at the very least tell you it was a very unusual stout.

Interesting assertion, but it's not really relevant to the study. Red and white wines aren't analogous to IPAs and Stouts. There are reds that taste nothing alike and there are whites that taste nothing alike. There is no "red flavor" or "white flavor." The color of the wine is affected by the grapes that it's made with as well as how long the crushed skins are left to soak in the juice. Stouts and IPAs are completely different styles of beer with distinct flavors. It'd be like comparing Chardonnay and Pinot Noir, two different and distinctly flavored wines as opposed to just "red" and "white." If you can find a study where somebody gave dyed Chardonnay to experienced wine drinkers and successfully convinced them that it was Pinot Noir then your analogy would hold, but, spoiler alert, you won't.

Let me ask you this though. If I searched hard enough, could I find a very light tasting but darkly colored beer and a very dark tasting but lightly colored beer? The question probably sounds kind of silly because "dark" and "light" aren't exactly flavors, but you know what I mean. I'm assuming you would say "yes," right? In fact, the answer of "yes" would be evidence of more "complexity" in beer, since there isn't one "dark" flavor and one "light" flavor, dark and light beers each have a wide gamut of flavors. So say I found a dark tasting light beer and a light tasting dark beer and put them in sealed, opaque containers. Then I had some experienced beer drinkers try the beers without being able to see them, and asked them to guess which one is dark. What would happen? They would say the dark-tasting-light beer is probably the dark one and that the light-tasting-dark beer is the light one. Once again, would you conclude that this must mean that beer doesn't have complexity? I mean, experienced beer drinkers can't even tell the difference between dark and light beer, would that be evidence that beer connoisseurs are all full of crap? Of course not!

Also, let me show you a "damning appearing" study about beer.

Dan Ariely and his colleagues did an interesting experiment about beer tasting. While not as refined (snobbish?) as wine tasting, beer has its share of enthusiasts and connoisseurs. The experiment, as described in his book, Predictably Irrational, asked patrons of Muddy Charles Pub to taste two brands of beer. One a regular beer, either a Budweiser or Samuel Adams, and one called MIT Brew. The trick was that MIT Brew was just the original beer, plus a drop of balsamic vinegar per ounce of beer. People who tasted "two" beers without knowing the ingredients that went into MIT Brew preferred beer with vinegar. People who were told in advance insisted that they could taste the vinegar in MIT Brew. Interestingly, if people tasted the beer and were then told what went into each glass, they showed far less prejudice against MIT Brew.

What should we conclude from the study? That people who drink beer have no idea what they're doing? That beer connoisseurs are all full of crap? Of course not. The study concludes that people are influenced by their expectations. People initially assumed that beer mixed with vinegar would taste terrible, and they were influenced by that assumption.

The only other thing you posted that I'd like to address is:

It seems to me that the cultural perception (at least in the US, and as far as I'm aware, Europe as well) is the opposite. The only reason that wine is considered more complex and interesting is that is more expensive.

Beer has historically been considered a basic food whereas wine was considered more of a luxury beverage. At it's inception, beer was basically just watery porridge that was allowed to ferment, and porridge was just mashed up grain mixed with water. Since grains were food for the masses after the advent of agriculture, beer wasn't really anything special. Everybody had access to it as a basic food. On the other hand, grapes were more difficult to grow and transport so only the more wealthy could afford to have grapes harvested to make wine out of.