To me that kind of observation seems subject to all kinds of biases. You seem to be equating "prestige" in a topic with being an expert in a topic - the two ar

To me that kind of observation seems subject to all kinds of biases. You seem to be equating "prestige" in a topic with being an expert in a topic - the two are not necessarily related. eg the more outrageous or unusual the claim from an "expert" (hence the less likely to be right), the more memorable that claim will be, or the more likely it will get attention. And the more someone is a "nobody", the more likely that their numerous eventually wrong claims will be dismissed or forgotten about compared to the memorable times some random was correct by accident. Likewise I find the more certain someone is of something that is still uncertain, the more likely they will be to be wrong. The alternative of wishy washy consensus full of qualifications doesn't report well if at all, and tends to have minor errors picked apart and amplified even while broadly correct overall.