Most modern cryptographic systems in wide use are based on a certain mathematical asymmetry: You can multiply a couple of large prime numbers much (much, much, much, much) more quickly than you can factor the product back into primes. A one-way hash is a kind of "fingerprint" for messages based on the same mathematical idea: It's really easy to run the algorithm in one direction, but much harder and more time consuming to undo. Certain bad arguments work the same way-skim online debates between biologists and earnest ID afficionados armed with talking points if you want a few examples: The talking point on one side is just complex enough that it's both intelligible-even somewhat intuitive-to the layman and sounds as though it might qualify as some kind of insight. (If it seems too obvious, perhaps paradoxically, we'll tend to assume everyone on the other side thought of it themselves and had some good reason to reject it.) The rebuttal, by contrast, may require explaining a whole series of preliminary concepts before it's really possible to explain why the talking point is wrong. So the setup is "snappy, intuitively appealing argument without obvious problems" vs. "rebuttal I probably don't have time to read, let alone analyze closely."
If we don't sometimes defer to the expert consensus, we'll systematically tend to go wrong in the face of one-way-hash arguments, at least outside our own necessarily limited domains of knowledge. Indeed, in such cases, trying to evaluate the arguments on their merits will tend to lead to an erroneous conclusion more often than simply trying to gauge the credibility of the various disputants. The problem, of course, is gauging your own competence level well enough to know when to assess arguments and when to assess arguers. Thanks to the perverse phenomenon psychologists have dubbed the Dunning-Kruger effect, those who are least competent tend to have the most wildly inflated estimates of their own knowledge and competence. They don't know enough to know that they don't know, as it were.
I wish more people realized that being a good philosopher or a good scientist is not about having witty comebacks or being able to answer difficult questions without having to think long and hard about them.
It appears a rather elitist attitude to discourage those who may have a valued point from expressing it because they have not studied the subject in depth.How many here have such a varied and in depth education in all the subjects they have debated.You could say when the Ufologist makes an appearance you have to agree with him because he has studied his subject.
Why would such a point be "valued" if the person knows nothing about the subject?