I'd say the article's reasoning is flawed :) We cannot be experts in everything. We can hardly be experts in a very narrow field; for all the rest we have to tr

I'd say the article's reasoning is flawed :) We cannot be experts in everything. We can hardly be experts in a very narrow field; for all the rest we have to trust other people. The only thing we can do is to choose who(m) we trust. Now, there are no rational rules to do this; we do this based on I don't know what. Experience, gut feeling, whatever; our own understanding of the world, of course, but it's bound to be limited. The fact that some people claim that they are devoted to science and reason doesn't make it so. The French Revolution claimed it was scientific; they gave us SI units everybody is so fond of. And Marx's "Capital" looked very reasonable for a very long time and even now many people still believe in its reasoning (or think they do; most don't understand it anyway). The Soviet propaganda and education made it a point that the communist theory was, you know, the only "scientific" theory of progress and everything. And it did look convincing, especially if you were exposed to nothing else since childhood; I'm talking as a survivor here :) And I say: no. Thanks, but the reason is not enough. Edit: typos.