David Kyle Johnson

They're legitimate experts, meaning that they are experts in a valid discipline that has a method behind it, a transparent, self-correcting, evidence-based, internally, logically, and consistent method.

Because the other problem we get into is,

is when chiropractors say, well, we're the experts in chiropractic, right?

Or acupuncturists say, well, we're the experts in chiropractic.

In acupuncture, you should listen to us.

But the problem is their expertise is not legitimate.

It's a fake expertise.

Yeah, exactly.

That's exactly what it is.

It's a homeopathic degree in baloney.

It's not valid.

So you have to include that layer too.

Is the expertise itself legitimate?

Here's another layer to that that makes it even trickier, in my opinion, is that so often I will make the argument that a particular medical pseudoscience is unlikely to be true because its origins are purely pseudoscientific.

It doesn't make it impossible to be true, but it raises the question, what are the odds that somebody invented something for purely superstitious reasons and

And it turns out to be true.

It's not impossible, but how lucky would that have been?

So in particular, acupuncture, for example, which at its core was essentially astrology and the existence and number and location of acupoints was pure superstition.

What are the odds that it correlates to something real and physical and physiological?

It's astronomical.