[sfotm]

If they have salient points that stand up to rigor, then yeah? This is pretty much an appeal-to-authority argument, isn't it?

FWIW, I have no context on the specific claims made by Peterson, but I've increasingly seen a line of logic that suggests you need to have a PhD in a topic in order to think critically about it.

[ourmandave]

A better analogy would be sending The Weather Channel guy to cite a bunch of sketchy papers on psychology that Peterson is all wrong.

[sfotm]

Not sure what analogy I made, but in this case, you can weigh how much you want to consider either opinion:

Sample Weather Channel Guy: - No history in psychology - Citing papers that are not highly respected under peer review

Sample Psychologist: - Has a long history in the field - Ideally has references available for their own claim

In this case, you'd probably want to err on the side of trusting the second person in the chart. What didn't happen, though, was a complete dismissal of the first person's claim based on credentials alone. If you have to make a decision on something quickly and authority is the only way for you to judge it, then sure, go for it. But appeal-to-authority doesn't belong in open-ended debates.