Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.

In this argument, the author claims that any judgment is worthless unless it is given by someone who is an expert in that field. In my perspective, I disagree the claim for it is possible that an expert may make a mistake.

Admittedly, an expert's judgment has its value since he was so acquainted with the knowledge in a certain field in which he was immersed for a long time. However, to err is human. An expert may perhaps make a mistaken judgment. There are quite a few examples throughout the history. Dr. Fleming was credited as the discovery of the penicillin which has cured many patients from fatal diseases. However, his discovery was at first depreciated by their contemporary medical experts. It is very amazing that this breakthrough in medical science had been ignored for a period of time. Obviously, the experts who thought Fleming's discovery was useless made a mistake to overlook such important finding.

There is another example. At very early time, the Aristotle's philosophy was very prevailing. He claimed that a heavier object tends to fall faster than a lighter one for the former has a strong tendency to return the ground. We now know that this argument is nonsense, but no one questioned this claim until Galileo made an experiment on free fall. Since then, physics started to advance. From this example, we can know that if we give to much credence on experts in the field, the progress of this field might be hindered.

To sum up, the judgment from an expert may has its value; however, we should not give too much credence on it without any doubt since expert sometimes may be wrong.