Informed analyses are the goal, and extensive study in an area is a benefit. That said, "experts" can and do have bias and conflicts of interest (funding, prest

Informed analyses are the goal, and extensive study in an area is a benefit. That said, "experts" can and do have bias and conflicts of interest (funding, prestige, acquiring tenure...) so their analyses require scrutiny as well. I would note that inappropriate appeal to authority is recognized as a logical fallacy. I would also note that we live at a time when there is unprecedented access to informations, so credentials alone are not the best measure of an argument. I think we benefit most from scholarly debate of different models/analysis where the different sides adjust their position based on the criticism. I would also note that both credentialed and non credentialed people can be stubborn...