For a moment there my brain was trying to make sense out of his left 'ear'.

Marx Brothers

Martin and Lewis, Abbott and Costello.

Have you tried spraying Windex on movies you do not like?

I'm not a philosopher, but damn, if it picks up by episode 70 doesn't sound like the most philosopher thing to my ears.

What's your take to the History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps?

And there's the crux, no? Epistemological Trespass isn't about credentials, it is about epistemology. Your rebuttals seem more like blaming medical stitches for causing the wound those same stitches seek to address.

What is Epistemological Trespass if not a caution against overly trusting credentials or status?

>In such discourse the phrase is used in regards to accusing laymen of ignorance and lacking education in the face of people crafting policy that often adversely affect said laymen.

Were they misinformed?

>"Who will watch the Watchers" yida yada. But the truth of the matter is the Experts are people like the rest of us and are prone to error and using their position as a vector to implement their personal politics (which is unavoidable, but manifests in egregious ways in particular instances)...

Who do you propose, those out of the field with next to little training or the tools to understand? Where is epistemological consensus in this?

Maybe you didn't read the article? If is referring to expert testimony in courts. Those 'experts' are somewhat defined in their jurisdictions by law. You may have seen that discussed in movies like My Cousin Vinnie.

While I'm not a lawyer the article seems to discuss an actual problem. Being in a court of law it seems reasonable for a pediatrician to quote a well understood statistic in the field. What seems outside of expertise for an average pediatrician is to modify or attempt to refine a well known statistic themselves without also being an expert in statistical methods relevant to that field.