I can't edit anymore so I'll comment. My point is that it's epistemically interesting. What makes it so is that it's hard (at least to me) to decide who's right or wrong. To do so would need an expert-level understanding of the matter at hand. That is not possible: I choose my own biased judgement, someone else potentially biased judgement, or I trust experts and a broader group of people that seems to have things sorted? Trusting others, I make the same choice (epistemically, let me stress again) as choosing my own biased judgement, after all it is my biased judgement that makes me choose that way. At some point, you have faith in something: yourself, the media, some partial knowledge of published papers (am I interpreting their relevance correctly?). My guess (but it is mine alone, going back into the loop) is that a broader group of people someone mitigates failures in having faith into the wrong stuff. This again is not true in general. All this to say, it's interesting to note how on some topics the general public seems to split into two groups, one advocating for the complete trust in the expert, the other for more or less complete self made opinions. Usually health, education, ... ? It seems to me that there isn't such a split for other topics.