This is a bad proposition and I'm afraid a wrong one. When you disagree with an expert, the expert should be able to convince you why s/he is right or at least

This is a bad proposition and I'm afraid a wrong one. When you disagree with an expert, the expert should be able to convince you why s/he is right or at least able to articulate the reasoning. It's not a chess game where you are an opponent to the expert and the next move is supposed to be secret. The relation between you and the expert is of collaboration, training and dissemination of knowledge. If an expert fails to articulate the reasoning, I take that as a sign that advice is merely because "it would work because I saw it worked before". That often means the expert failed to analyze and learn from his/her success and is just proposing the status quo. It is often better to question this kind of expert advice and that's how progress has almost always been made throughout human history.