I read it, and kept wondering if he was saying that if we're not formally trained in whatever the issue is, we should assume it's valid simply because the peopl

I read it, and kept wondering if he was saying that if we're not formally trained in whatever the issue is, we should assume it's valid simply because the people involved are formally trained. It seems that it would be dangerous to take this view very far. Experts should be given weight in a discussion because they have better arguments, not simply because we assume they know what they're talking about... I may have missed some subtleties, or the whole point :).