You imply there is a necessary noise in the conversation. Who are we to define what credentials should be used to define what is noisy and what is not? I think

You imply there is a necessary noise in the conversation. Who are we to define what credentials should be used to define what is noisy and what is not? I think the best way is to attack the argument itself, not where it is coming from. If the discourse become authoritative and biased, we shut it, disregard it pointing out the flaws. But we have to be careful not to be authoritative ourselves when we don't even give the chance for the writer to be wrong because he lacks the right credentials.