I agree, becoming an expert is too strong. Here's an example.
Physicians in the early 1800s were taught many medical practices and concepts that had no basis in fact (the dynamics of Hippocrates' 4 body humors, the value of bleeding, germs were not the basis of disease, miracle elixirs abound, etc). You'd think all medicine practiced in that time would be worthless. But in fact, a small number of heterodox doctors recognized the contradictions and limits inherent in the dogma of the day and chose to think and practice largely independently of it, testing methods themselves to retain what worked and discard what didn't, and sharing lessons learned with peers they respected. They personally employed the scientific method and learned from it, despite the established orthodoxy.
Each of those experimental revelations did not depend on expertise, only on a rigorous determination to be methodical and fair-minded and refrain from employing or spreading unfounded claims. That's more a matter of discipline and personal integrity than expertise.
Physicians in the early 1800s were taught many medical practices and concepts that had no basis in fact (the dynamics of Hippocrates' 4 body humors, the value of bleeding, germs were not the basis of disease, miracle elixirs abound, etc). You'd think all medicine practiced in that time would be worthless. But in fact, a small number of heterodox doctors recognized the contradictions and limits inherent in the dogma of the day and chose to think and practice largely independently of it, testing methods themselves to retain what worked and discard what didn't, and sharing lessons learned with peers they respected. They personally employed the scientific method and learned from it, despite the established orthodoxy.
Each of those experimental revelations did not depend on expertise, only on a rigorous determination to be methodical and fair-minded and refrain from employing or spreading unfounded claims. That's more a matter of discipline and personal integrity than expertise.