@strypey False.

Though I might have phrased that with greater clarity.

First, "appeal to authority" is one of several informal fallacies, that is, it doesn't automatically invalidate a statement, but it does suggest a weakness.

Second, appeal to authority refers to power or position independent of epistemic characteristics. In its classic form it often referred to reliance on religious or political statements, or perhaps on overreliance of ancient sources (e.g., Aristotle, classically, in mediaeval and Renaissance Europe). There are heavy overtones of Papal infallability to it.

Expertise is direct experience or knowledge of a subject, or general knowledge of a field. It is a measure of credibility for knowledge of which we cannot ourselves claim first-hand familiarity. Or, often, for which a first impression gives a false or misleading sense as compared to a deeper understanding.

It is expertise and not authority we are relying on when we cite a reference work (dictionary, encyclopedia, desk reference, statistics, textbook, article), or when we call on expert witnesses in legal or other hearings. There's some confounding of this in common parlance as an expert is often referred to as an authority, but in most cases that authority derives from specific experience, reputation, and credibility rather than some conferred political or social power.

Expertise and credibility are not absolutes, and neither @vik nor I are claiming this. I've specifically indicated these are fallible. You've specifically misrepresented our statements as claiming otherwise. Which, I might add, makes you an unreliable source.

However as an initial prior for judging information it is a USEFUL guide. And in matters epistemic, utility has an extraordinary significance. We CANNOT be called upon to judge and assess each and every claim individually (regards the claim) and personally (regards persons). Instead we rely on standards, institutions, and practices of trust and presumed belief. We change our views as evidence changes, or as authorities previously viewed as credible come to be generally assessed as unreliable.

In the context of the present discussion, Sabine Hossenfelder is providing a summary news piece in which she's discussing items of interest to a general science community. Specific expertise in physics and mathematics is a valid basis for general understanding, and we can further presume that Hossenfelder has a team assisting in that process (she alludes to this in multiple ways).

What we're relying on her for then is:

• To filter through candidate stories to find those of greatest relevance and significance.
• To accurately summarize and present findings.
• Where she does so, to accurately express opinions on the overall findings or nature of the items.

Which is to say: this is not scholarly or academic research itself, but a review of that research. Details of methodology and findings are going to be in the referenced documents.

And the general expertise and credibility are specifically what is relevant for a scientific communicator / news presenter, in such a case.

I noted above that the overhead of researching and rebutting every last claim is nonfeasible --- it's effectively a denial-of-serivce attack on our brains individually and on public knowledge generally. So is rebutting lazy, inaccurate, and if I may use the term, bullshit arguments or objections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

Mostly, though, it leads to extraordinarily tedious side tangents rather than a substantive discussion of the main topic at hand. There are times when it's reasonable to question sources. This ... really isn't one.

Edit: Markdown fixes .