these are all good observations but they miss coalescing an approachable framing of understanding, not the least of which, by accepting expertise as a legitimat

these are all good observations but they miss coalescing an approachable framing of understanding, not the least of which, by accepting expertise as a legitimate concept in the first place. one elucidating observation is to realize that the term 'expert' is largely a mediopolitical assertion. that is, people who have no qualifications in a given field use 'experts' to assert the credibility of their narrative by choosing a single/small voice from that field to represent the entirety of it's esteem. that's quintessentially a political act, to influence others, perhaps unduly, perhaps against their own interest, which is where the trust dies away. trust develops among humans through direct interaction and obseration, and most experts haven't gained that directly with an audience. at best, they've done so among a small, arbitrary (to observers) group of people around the 'expert'. moreover, trust isn't a singular concept. people trust others for their political motivations much more often than technical skill, for instance. bury that under many layers of credentialism, an abstraction specifically designed to convey trust where it can't be built naturally, and where we go wrong societally starts to become clear. when seeking information in a mediopolitical context (e.g., all of social media and news), the most reasonable course of action (for most people most of the time) is to disregard expertise entirely, because the purpose in that context is to mislead via an appeal to (constructed) authority, even if subtly and relatively benignly. it's propaganda built on top of slivers of factuality loaned in from 'experts', in a grand jostling for voice, relevance, and power. none of it should be taken seriously from a technical point of view.