The difference is that choosing experts is itself amenable to scientific analysis. If you assume people are acting with good intentions, this differentiates th

The difference is that choosing experts is itself amenable to scientific analysis. If you assume people are acting with good intentions, this differentiates the case of experts with scientific knowledge vs experts without. If you assume bad intentions, then all possible expert panels can’t be trusted anyway. I think when people try to elevate non-scientific experts to the level of scientific experts on a scientific issue, really they are trying to make it tribal and specifically remove objectivity and evidence, when they perceive it as a threat to their tribal commitments and ways of life. You can of course subvert scientific experts to do the same, but with science you have the option to let objectivity win. No other way of constructing expert panels has that option besides scientific inquiry.