My first thought, though, was what about Kuhn and Popper and those philosophy of science folks who critique and reframe scientific methods and findings? They are nonscientists but not necessarily wrong.

(I'm getting modal already and no one needs that this early.)

But then I thought it's possible (I'm still modal!) to categorize philosophers of science as folks who are not really disagreeing with scientists about science. They are questioning methodology, inferential structures, paradigms, etc.

Okay.

That leaves me with one worry.

What do we do with a lucky non-expert, who got everything right without justification? I think this facebook argument does not account for that case. But maybe they could be managed by saying the lucky non-expert does not have real knowledge. Any thoughts?