But if one is skeptical of an expert's conclusions, shouldn't one reserve judgements upon the validity of the arguments if one doesn't have the expertise to evaluate the arguments?
On the arguments? Sure.
But often experts are used to circumvent argument; the expert is presented and delivers his/her conclusion, and his/her resume is substituted for that argument.
"Why did I come to the conclusion that I did? Because I'm the expert. Trust me." The problem here is that anybody can deliver conclusions in an authoritative way; and plenty of people who couldn't pour piss from a boot with directions on the heel have a CV as long as my arm.
I think a healthy distrust of experts is a good thing. Of course some folks take it too far, and reject the conclusions of an expert simply
because they're held to be an expert. I think it's appropriate to strike a balance between enthusiasm for education and expertise and skepticism in regards to unsupported claims.
™ Version 4.2