"someone dedicating years of studies to understand the state of the art in a scientific field and THEN doubting results." That very same argument was and is do

"someone dedicating years of studies to understand the state of the art in a scientific field and THEN doubting results." That very same argument was and is done on the theological level, too. You doubt god? You just haven't read the bible enough. How dare you criticize someone who spend 40 years studying it? Do the same and then you understand and maybe can start criticizing. (I was told this many times in various forms.) So critical questions are the core of science. Even if they are ignorant ones, then you can point them to the subject they are missing. And sure, not every ignorant answer deserves to be answered. Time and energy are limited. But appeal to authority is never a good scientific argument. I rather believe they erode the fundaments of it. There likely are many wrong models around and usually wrong models don't get challenged by the established institutions. (Max Planck: science progresses one funeral at a time) But of course, in your example, there was no critical question. So no science. Those people I tell to create a structured argument first, if they want to have a scientific debate.