No kidding! Did you notice that the first time you read it? Or was it only after I showed how it would make hypocrites out of most of us?
It is perfectly legitimate for me to cite Doctor Stochastic (and you) as authorities on the mathematics of radiometric dating, assuming I examine your credentials and find you to be bona-fide experts in this matter.
Um, how would I present my credentials for your examination? As far as that goes, how have your other "authorities" done it? Bio data on the flyleaf of their books? I guess I've done about that well in a previous post...
Mankind has built elaborate social institutions to try to ensure that experts are properly certified. In fact, one of them has "certified" me (in math, anyway). The same institutions teach us that it is a logical fallacy to appeal to inappropriate authorities. The subtext tells me that "inappropriate" refers to "uncertified"—by those institutions, at least. How surprising.
Would Srinivasa Ramanujan have been considered an "appropriate" authority in mathematics? How much weight should we give to the degree he was finally awarded? Should it bother us that some of his results were wrong? On the other hand, should we ignore his brilliant accomplishments?
The real problem with the "appeal to authority fallacy" is the question of "appropriate authority." Who decides? Reasonable people will often disagree on who is the "authority" on an issue.
That's a start, for sure. There are other markers I can look for - have you published much original work? How often is your work cited by others in your field? Have your contributions been accepted as a matter of consensus? And so forth...
As someone who has gone through the process of getting edumacated myself, I am prepared to preliminarily grant those who have taken the time to undertake a rigorous study of a particular field the status of "expert" in that field. I understand what the process is designed to produce, and I accept it as prima facie valid, until shown otherwise. Whatever I might think of Michael Behe's arguments, I must accept that he meets the standard of being an expert in the field, and therefore his arguments should be considered in that light.
Mankind has built elaborate social institutions to try to ensure that experts are properly certified. In fact, one of them has "certified" me (in math, anyway). The same institutions teach us that it is a logical fallacy to appeal to inappropriate authorities. The subtext tells me that "inappropriate" refers to "uncertified"?by those institutions, at least. How surprising.
Yes and no. I don't think the distinction is quite that clear-cut. Anyone is free to make a contribution, although for non-certified experts, the skeptical bar my be much higher. If, however, your arguments are compelling, the "experts" will have little choice but to accept it.
And I would point out that the bar is set high for a reason. This is, after all, how we weed out the actual frauds, cranks, shysters, and quacks. And really, how can you make a real, original contribution if you haven't A) taken the time to learn the language, and; B) taken the time to learn what others have done before you?
The real problem with the "appeal to authority fallacy" is the question of "appropriate authority." Who decides? Reasonable people will often disagree on who is the "authority" on an issue.
It is certainly an appropriate question to ask whether sciences are too insular and inbred as a result of their acting as their own gatekeepers as to who constitutes an "expert." But, as you said, we have set some societal standards in this area, and I think that the advances and discoveries made by science, particularly in the last 100 years, serve as empirical proof that the system as it currently exists is well worth the inherent resulting trade-offs.