How exactly do you convince people that "experts" aren't the best people to consult?

It seems to me that this post mistakes a (perhaps legitimate, who knows?) complaint against the quality of experts in a particular area for a legitimate complaint against expertise itself.

I can't help you much, because I consider that usually experts are the best people to consult, unless it's in a domain in which I have pretty solid knowledge (not the case for medicine), and I'm willing to put a lot of time to do research. If I believe A, and a domain expert believes B, then chances are the expert is right, and I should update.

(Of course this is also heavily dependent of how exactly I came to hear the expert's advice. If he has a financial incentive to get me to buy something, I'll trust him less; if I sought out an expert that agreed with my position, knowing that there exists such an expert gives me very little evidence; but if I pick a random expert that has no stake in the question, and ask his advice, it'll weight more than my guess.)

Just tell them that all the anti-expert experts agree on this point.

Thanks for the replies everyone! They were really helpful.

On a side note - I think I do get one of the primary sources of tension here. The difference here - is that experts tend to err on the side of the precautionary principle. Meanwhile, I'm willing to take solutions that could (in someone else's eyes) carry greater risk (but which I believe will have more expected benefit). There are two separate decision-making procedures in place here, and both sides place different weights on each particular type of evidence.

I find the following heuristic pretty useful when I am considering whether to credit or dismiss an authority. I ask myself, "Do I have a rational basis for believing that this person is evaluating the evidence in the way that I would if I had the time and talent to study it myself?"

That formulation covers up a lot of potential for recursion, such as when I am evaluating whether to accept someone's authority on the credibility of another authority (a priest's on the Bible's, say). A more tangled recursion comes in when I'm deciding whether to credit an authority's assertion about how to evaluate evidence in general, including the evidence that someone is an authority.

Nonetheless, despite these loops, I think that it all bottoms out eventually in my evaluating, with my own reason, evidence to which I have direct access. (Here I'm using "my own reason" and "direct access" in a sense sufficiently weak so that they uncontroversially happen at least sometimes.)

One might worry that this is a recipe for only crediting authorities with which one already agrees, and hence for intellectual stagnation. But I don't think so. You can, on these rational grounds, credit an authority so much that you will believe the authority over some other result of your own reasoning, so that you modify your basic assumptions. This will lead to changes in the way that you evaluate evidence, which in turn can result in different authorities "making the cut".

[I heavily self-plagiarized here from this comment on the bloggingheads.tv forums.]

"experts" is not an interesting reference class.