Originally Posted by theprestige
In the particular case of the experts who are the topic of this thread:
There is no evidence that they have contravened the clinical standards of their profession in a way that would bring their assessment of Donald Trumpís mental health into question. Their expert opinion on Donald Trumpís mental heath was arrived at using the standards of their profession. It is reliable. Their opinions are scrutable to the lay audience they are addressing.
They are not practicing in a poorly regulated or unsupervised profession.
There is no evidence that they want ďadvantagesĒ. In what way does their published opinion provide them with advantages?
The argument is that they should not publicize their opinions of Trumpís mental health due to a regulation of an organization that they may or may not belong to. This has nothing to do with the validity of their argument.