Sorry Cosmik, I don’t want to be pedantic, but this issue is important to me.
I object to you or Feynman or anyone making the blanket statement “I do not trust the experts”, or even “I do not believe that experts are reliable, good, honest, etc.”, and let's be clear, he did not say that verbatim. I find this dangerous and arbitrary. Anytime one disagrees with an expert (perhaps you don't like the political implications of the expert's work), they can cite Feynman (according to you - I disagree) and say “I do not trust the experts”. Feynman was an expert in a variety of sub-fields of physics, and I trust him.
When I said “question the experts”, I meant (and said) “question their (scientific) methodology”. I did not mean call them on the phone and ask them, I meant evaluate their methods and then decide on trust.
You said:
In other words, every 'expert' in that field has already signed up to an orthodoxy that exists only in reference to itself, and only someone on the outside can identify its meaninglessness.
and that is not true. Young proves that it is not
every expert, and I doubt Young was the only one ever. Since you, I, and Feynman are not experts in rat mazes, and Feynman's words are from 1974, I think your characterization "every expert" is too strong.
I fully stand by my statement:
Experts can and should be trusted when they can demonstrate their trustworthiness to non-experts.