I don't disagree, but to play devil's advocate: the problem with "trust the experts, despite contradiction of everyday experience", is that it opens a massive a

I don't disagree, but to play devil's advocate: the problem with "trust the experts, despite contradiction of everyday experience", is that it opens a massive attack vector for moral hazard / perverse incentives, for those who seek to profit or gain power from leveraging expertise (whether real or perceived). History is replete with data points where the experts were wrong (bloodletting) or dishonest (Iraq invasion). Laypeople are stuck with a "trust your mechanic" problem, of not having the knowledge to assess which experts are trustworthy. It's easy to mock anti-vaxxers, climate denialists, et al; while an honest inquiry leaves room for nuance, those issues seem to have definitive answers, where reality correlates closely with the so-called consensus. But at the same time, the knee-jerk anti-science reactions should be viewed through a lens of general declining social trust in institutions. Even though those particular issues may be the wrong fields of combat, there's a subconscious sense in which everyday people feel lied to for decades by "experts". Now we're stuck in a boy-who-cried-wolf situation, where the actual experts who are honest brokers and have their shit together aren't being taken seriously. Trust is hard-won and easily lost, and there are massive downstream effects to corruption in truth-finding/sense-making institutions.