The Problem isn't the Experts

If there's a pool of knowledge, e.g. medicine or fry cooking, an expert is someone with a higher degree of knowledge (or expertise) compared to others who have general knowledge (subject matter generalists) or no knowledge of the subject (an ignoramus, used affectionately). 

I have a profession where I am considered a subject matter expert. I prepare data and information for others without expertise so they can make decisions. The decision makers can be other experts or generalists, or ignoramuses with or without competency in other fields, and they have the ability to reject your expert recommendations. They can instead fish for different experts who can provide them with a recommendation that they prefer or that suits the decisions they want to make.

The problem isn't experts; it's the decision makers who present the experts as authorities to substantiate their decisions. In other words, it's not a matter of whether we should trust experts or not; we should be cautious of the people who tell us which experts to trust. Everyone is fallible. Even the experts. Please see the two screen captures of both Bing results and Google results for the definition of fallible below and a very appropriate example of its use in a sentence.

The solution is critical thinking, more high-quality information, and waiting for the high-quality information to beat the low-quality information before committing to a decision. Recognize that not all decisions need to be made urgently. If someone presents a situation to you and requests a quick decision, consider the actual urgency and recognize that this might be a manipulation tactic. Have higher standards for proof. Ask questions. Make people show their work and don't take their word for it. Scrutinize it. Have others who are knowledgeable scrutinize it.