> I tend to evaluate arguments on their merits, not on the author's credentials Of course, let's not make this binary, one or the other. Everyone uses both to

> I tend to evaluate arguments on their merits, not on the author's credentials Of course, let's not make this binary, one or the other. Everyone uses both to varying degrees, and other signals too (if the post used bad English, for example, many would doubt the author's credibility). In this case, I lean more heavily on expertise because the content is a product of expertise - rules of thumb. If they wrote 'I can create cold fusion in a teacup', I'd lean heavily on the merits - can they do it or not? > If one doesn't have the background to evaluate those arguments, I don't think they're supposed to be reading them anyway That greatly narrows everyone's reading material and awareness of the world. Somehow I have to decide what to do about many things in life, almost all of which I lack expertise in. In the end, there is no way to avoid having to decide whether to trust the author or not - or more generally, to trust others or not, from consultants to bosses to employees to that wonderful person you might want to marry.