The issue at large is the weaponization of consensus, where "all experts" allegedly agree on something, and then using that in an attempt to ascertain what is or isn't true.

I do think there could be something of value built on nostr too. Credentials should not necessarily be a qualifier though - look how many 'experts' have failed to realise or acknowledge the state of science at large today. In fact, it is those very people who have facilitated the fraud we are seeing in so many fields (vaccinology, climate, fiat, etc.).

At the very least, nostr could serve as a censorship-resistant place where these things could be discussed without interference from parties with an agenda, where ideas can be challenged without being forced off the platform or having your research removed because it goes against what 'most' people believe.