Originally Posted by Belz...
Experts have to earn trust the same as everyone else. And at the end of the day, their opinions have to be scrutable to the lay audiences they are trying to address.
Opinions from experts in a poorly regulated, unsupervised profession probably shouldn't be trusted just because they're experts. You don't necessarily want the opinions of Blackwater veterans, on the topic of destroying the village versus saving the village.
Likewise, opinions from experts who break from their profession's regulations or standards probably also shouldn't be trusted just because they're experts. The whole point of regulating and standardizing a profession is to make it more trustworthy. When a professional presents their "expert" opinion, you know it's reliable because it's consistent with the framework of reliability established by their profession. This is the fundamental problem the Yale group faces: They want all the advantages that accrue to a profession that has established its trustworthiness, but also all the advantages of departing from their profession's framework of trustworthiness.