A major issue with this argument is that consensus does not mean right. Take the scientific consensus at one point in time and Earth is the center of the univer

A major issue with this argument is that consensus does not mean right. Take the scientific consensus at one point in time and Earth is the center of the universe, take it at another time and leaded fuel is perfectly safe, at another time and we have phrenology as an accepted and influential science. Even for something much more recent, nearly all of top tier academia in the US was actively in support in involuntary government driven eugenics [1] until some low ranking German soldier and artist by the name of Adolf clearly demonstrated how mind-bogglingly idiotic an idea that was. As an interesting aside, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famous proclamation legitimizing government driven eugenics, culminating with "The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes." [2] has never actually been formally overturned. We simply dropped eugenics thanks to that eccentric German artist. People, obviously including the world's foremost experts on any given topic, invariably form consensus around things that end up ultimately being completely wrong. Of course this does not suggest some sort of truth nihilism. There are of course true and false things, but in fields where there is still plenty of room for debate - trying to censor people because they do simply fall in line with a liminal "consensus" is one of the most completely regressive ideals imaginable. For instance you critique the group for having experts who do not have backgrounds in e.g. psychology. Yet you are certainly aware of the psychology replication crisis. It started with the discovery that some 64% of psychology studies in leading journals could not be replicated! And unlike psychology studies, this discovery can and has been replicated. The replication rate in social psychology is at around 25%. And, again, these studies were from leading journals. Think about what this means. If you read about any study in psychology, or especially in social psychology, you'd generally be far more accurately informed if you assumed that was stated as statistically significant was, in fact, not. "Experts" with backgrounds in psychology, especially social psychology, are the last people you should turn to for anything - except for perhaps how to get bad science published. This is callous, but it's also completely true! The point I make with this is that appealing to some necessity of psychology backgrounds is really more about trying to silence or discredit 'outsider' voices, than an actually useful, let alone, necessary credential. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis