The article is simplistic with too many assumptions. There are no "Experts" but only "Levels of Expertise"; and the only way to identify the correct level of s

The article is simplistic with too many assumptions. There are no "Experts" but only "Levels of Expertise"; and the only way to identify the correct level of someone is to be at a particular level yourself based on a objective and honest appraisal of your own knowledge in that domain. Both the perceiver and the perceived are factors to be considered. In common parlance the title "Expert" is bestowed on somebody (usually to the bemusement of that person) when a sizable group of the population acknowledges (not necessarily logically since we have Marketing/PR/Spin/Propaganda/etc. involved) him/her to be at a higher-rung in the knowledge-ladder then themselves in a particular domain. The caveat is that given the complexity/depth of any domain today the vast majority of the population are not to be trusted in their opinions. You can only trust somewhat the judgement of the "peers" of the "Expert" in that particular domain. Knowledge is gained only through a) Direct Perception, b) Logical Inference and c) Valid/Authentic Testimony and all play a part here.