Quite true… the problem is you can find very learned, qualified, experienced, recognized, and qualified scholars who say entirely opposite things. So by what standard do we choose which we will trust? Gut instinct, personal preference? Hair color?
In my example, there’s no way I could compete with the volume of knowledge and study of the scholars involved in the Jesus Seminar. But when I read their works, I found all sorts of unjustified assumptions, question begging, blind importing of their own cultural biases, cases where their exact same methodology led them to opposite conclusions, and in their case, their core methods were entirely fallacious: it required me to believe that Jesus was not influenced by his Jewish culture, and that Jesus’ teachings had no influence on the beliefs of the early church. I could not compete with their knowledge or learning, but I knew ludicrous reasoning when I saw it.
I was able also to read critiques, and see other scholars recognized the same fallacies I saw, and brought up other critiques that I was able to recognize were substantial.
So yes, I agree we shouldn’t just live in skepticism… but just because there is a knowledge gap between any of us lay people and great experts and scholars, it doesn’t follow that there is a logic gap. I can still recognize bad reasoning when I see it, and for me at least, it is those factors which lead me to trust certain scholars or methods over others.