> The problem with Stoke's analysis is that it requires any thinker to delegate his/her thoughts to others without questioning whether their expertise is based on sound information.

Quite the opposite, don't you think?

Even experts can sometimes be wrong. On an issue about which one personally knows nothing, the wisest course, if the issue is urgent, is to go with the best-credentialed experts with the best track records.

If the whole body of qualified expert opinion is more or less evenly divided, all you can do is to suspend judgment. But in that case, the experts themselves will agree that opinion is divided and call for further study.

Chance and human weakness suggest that a tiny percentage of credentialed experts in any field will be cranks (or crooks) no matter what. These are the ones that the totally uninformed and unpersuadable will always turn to for quotes.

In matters of specialized knowledge, which includes all fields of science and medicine, the majority doesn't "rule." It's simply that the vast majority of experts is far more likely to be correct than a tiny (and usually inevitable) minority of dissenters.