Laypeople trump experts

I was referring to the views expressed in the posts I quoted from Michael Larkin on the first page. I could find additional examples here or probably any of the threads in this forum - http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/forums/why...-is-wrong/ if my OP and subsequent posts weren't clear. I thought you meant much the same thing, but apologies if I misunderstood.

Examples of the "oft-made" claims I described in my OP as:
"individuals are reasonably capable of picking and choosing which authorities can be regarded as plausible" and
"if they have a modicum of knowledge and experience in a field, that they are capable of weighing the evidence themselves"

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-da...3#pid10363
"I do have quite a lot of education in the field of biology to evaluate the work both of IDers and neo-Darwinists, both of which are often discussed at EN&V. I have come to the conclusion that much (not all by any means) of what IDers say is cogent. I don't have to rely wholly on second-hand interpretations -- I can usually draw my own."

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-ho...7#pid10747
"I've had many experiences that have given me confidence in my own analytical ability and my ability to form opinions myself without having to rely on authorities."

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-in...ight=bauer
"I think that anyone, any person – including any non-scientist – can and should perform his or her own analysis and make his or her own decision concerning any scientific controversy."

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/ho...post-69526
Malcolm Kendrick as a plausible authority.

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-da...5#pid10365
Henry Bauer as a plausible authority.

These were I few I remembered off the top of my head. If anyone wants to claim that these ideas don't often arise here and on the Skeptiko forum, that most would regard Alex's "Why Science is Wrong...About Almost Everything" campaign as misguided, I would be most pleased to discover that I was wrong.

Dante has clarified that he meant something along the lines of, "lay people can have intelligent opinions while scientists can be infallible" (paraphrased from this). I agree with his statement and apologize for misusing his quote.

Oops. I just realized that should be “scientists can be fallible”.

Linda