It's been shown that expertise is only valuable in fields where there is a short enough and frequent enough feedback loop for a person to actually develop expertise -- and there is something coherent to develop the expertise in. Outside of such fields, experts are just blowhards with status.

I don't disagree with this, but do you happen to have a cite?

I would also point out that feedback which consists solely of the opinions of other experts probably shouldn't count as feedback. Too much danger of groupthink.