This came out of a discussion here... http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2868113&postcount=8 And these are some of the key quotes from lightgigantic that I disagree with. Though, I would like to add that I have not seen, or noticed at least, this way of formulating the idea, and I am grateful he presented it and in the terms he did. It clarified my thinking, in a sense gave me a label for something. Taking the medical example.... I have known people who were being treated by conventional medicine and conventional medicine was something they never questioned. A couple of these people were given chemotherapy. At a certain point they decided, No, my body does not want this. It is wrong for me. I know this. They based this on a feeling/intuition and had no authority to support them in this. They asked for alternatives and were told this must be part of their treatment or they will die - by the doctors they were being treated by. They got second opinions, again within conventional western med. No new options. So they hit the internet and found alternative treatments, followed these are alive today long after they 'should' have died. Let me jump fields to religion... I see people move out of religions, sometime simply based on it feeling wrong to them, sometimes but not always combined with mental, formulated criticisms of the religions. These of course can be based on using another authority - another religion or religious leader to support their shift away - but I have seen people who shifted simply because of their own sense that something wrong (at least for them) was happening. And so they rejected the 'treatment' for their spiritual 'illnesses'. After this there may be gaps in time where they are floating, in pain even perhaps, yearning for something spiritual, but sure they do not want 'that one.' Then after the gap, they find something that does feel right and this takes on the role of religious authority for them. As far as I can tell this has worked for them. I have seen similar patterns in relation to psychiatry, again with another authority to approve and support the shift - if only via ideas. Note: I am not saying all cases of gut feelings lead to improvement, nor am I saying this in the specific case of rejection of authority. I am only arguing that it can take place and is an option that has helped people, even saved them. I am also not saying this is some easy thing or that everyone should do this. I am arguing directly against the notion that it must be the case and any moves like this are because of their category wrong or impossible. I reject this notion that one cannot make important decisions such as these and many others ONLY when we can get the implicit approval or knowledge of a new expert to replace the old one. I think this can happen quite often about perhaps less huge issues as the ones listed above, but also and validly even with those kinds of important decisions. I reject the notion that the only primary deep insight we can have is which authority to choose and after that we (should) just follow the rules. I have also seen cases where people negotiate with experts - doctors are a good example. IOW their own personal feelings and preferences end up affecting their treatments, leading their treatment process to be a combination of their ideas and those of the doctors - often not the doctors preferred or even recommended choices, and this has worked also. I find no reason to assume that I or anyone MUST only follow experts in any field.