The problem is that everyone* is an enthusiast and it's unclear who the experts are. The definition of "expert" is extremely subjective and highly variegated even within very small domains. Even among mutually-acknowledged experts, it's not easy to come to an agreement on the minutia of a particular area of expertise. The bees of middle earth is a silly and rather inconsequential example, but this kind of arguing is what conferences are for. Claims are meant to be supported by evidence, and experts are regarded as such if their ideas are well supported by the facts, and claims that are weakly supported should be challenged. If I deferred to every blowhard "expert" with a laminated badge I heard speak at a conference I would be A) confused** and B) probably up to my eyeballs in crypto MLM debt.

* at every conference there always seems to be a small cohort that just utterly does not want to be there. They seem to detest their own area of expertise as well as anyone involved with it. Sometimes they are frauds but more often than not they have something valuable to contribute, but they do it with deepest disdain. I do not know how this happens but it seems like a miserable existence.

EDIT:
** I am still confused, but if I were uncritical of "experts" I would be considerably more confused about a lot of stuff, because experts are wrong all the time. They're still more right about their fields of expertise than non-experts, I'm not trying to say that experts are useless, but conferences are the exact right place to be critical of expert claims.