That's an interesting one. If you were to have steeped yourself in all the literature on economics, say, then it would probably have made you less likely to predict the economic crash of 2007/8. It doesn't mean that I, an ignoramus, would have known any better about it, but at least I would be looking down on the wood (so to speak) rather than in amongst the trees.
For example, I distrust GDP as a measure of economic health much more than the average economist whose usual view is along the lines of "Well we don't have anything better to measure it by...". They have invested a lot in becoming an expert, and they're not going to let the small matter of a defective measure stand in their way. If they all agree to use it, at least they can't be blamed individually when it all blows up. I think British PM Gordon Brown was one of these people, and the man whose article I linked to yesterday (a BBC presenter) spotted Gordon Brown's mistakes before the crash.
As mentioned before, the reason we have politicians making decisions, rather than scientists or other experts, is to act as intermediaries who can see past the hubris that all enthusiasts and obsessives are prone to. It all gets a bit weird when virtue signalling rears its head, though. Then *everyone* in polite society works towards something without it necessarily having to be real.