this is exactly what i’m pointedly disagreeing with. expertise gives you no such esteem to have others defer to you by default. what it does confer is an expectation of novel (to the non-expert) information and perhaps reasoning, but explicitly not deference. we are all often wrong, especially in our areas of expertise because of the disproportionate amount of time we spend in that area. have some humility that you may bring a relatively unique or more considered perspective to the table, but not infallibility or almighty ‘truth’.
and earnest consideration of an ‘expert’ opinion is the best you should hope for. all the rest is by definition beyond the realm of science and into the realm of (small p) political. that is, expertise signalling is always an appeal to authority, no matter the magnitude or centrality of the claim. only the reasoning/evidence matters, not the titles of the person presenting them. you may expect some correlation there but should never assume it.
(note that i’ve also scienced in my past life, if that meta-information matters to you in the way you seem to believe it should.)