I think your position is rational of course but I think you miss the degree to which experts are deluded as well.
Physics is different - it's a subject ultimately and deeply grounded in mathematics and empirical testing. Not to mention nearly every professional in the field is highly intelligent and intellectually curious. Law is another area which is complex and weeds out people who can't think.
Biologists, chemists, medical examiners, long time judges, psychologists and so on into softer and softer and more statistically based fields get less and less reliable, both because they are naturally less intelligent on average and because there's nothing to weed out the good from the bad and correct erroneous or lazy thinking. It's the latter experts that I don't think have a probability of being correct superior to the determination of a moderately intelligent motivated layman.
Quote:
So getting back to digestion - you can educate me about aspects of how digestion works and explain to me why your argument makes sense and show that its all very logical and consistent but there's no way for me to know if you're missing other important considerations. So, in the end, I can either trust you that you've done all the necessary research and have taken everything important into account - or I can trust that some other expert has.
Right, but when the experts contradict each other and make the most basic of errors, you know right away that they're not taking into account "important considerations". They're just idiots. This is instantly obvious from C&V for example, or Hellmann. In the digestion testimony, one expert for example took his stomach emptying from the time eating first started at 6pm, while another took it from 8pm, when the last eating ended. They both had the same range (other had different ranges) but their time of death based on stomach contents was off by two hours from this basic error. Such basic errors instantly reduce the probability that they are correct to less than an intelligent layman.
I presented these arguments to you as well as the scientific data, but you still clung to your belief that people who make such errors are still reliable because they are experts and there is some overlap.