The problem is that any layman not specifically in that chain has no way of making a determination between the person with "skin in the game" that is right and the corpus of information stating otherwise, not the contemporary expert with "skin in the game" that agrees with the existing literature.
The opposite scenario can be true as well,where the literature is correct but the expert is wrong, for any number of reasons (including random distribution of experience).
In the end, without some probability distribution between the scenarios, which is likely wildly different based on field, we can't use this information to any useful effect beyond acknowledging that the consensus can be wrong, which is useful in itself.
In the end we are left having to decide whether following what we hope is usually careful scientific consensus has left us better off than alternatives, to which the answer is I don't know, but I sure hope so. :/
The opposite scenario can be true as well,where the literature is correct but the expert is wrong, for any number of reasons (including random distribution of experience).
In the end, without some probability distribution between the scenarios, which is likely wildly different based on field, we can't use this information to any useful effect beyond acknowledging that the consensus can be wrong, which is useful in itself.
In the end we are left having to decide whether following what we hope is usually careful scientific consensus has left us better off than alternatives, to which the answer is I don't know, but I sure hope so. :/