It is all fun and games when it is in the movies, but it becomes problematic when equally ridiculous ideas gain traction in the real world. One such concept that gets thrown around a lot nowadays--in the halls of congress, by radio talk show hosts, on internet discussion boards, and everywhere else--can be summarized as follows: "Are you an expert? I didn't think so. You know nothing." Are those really the only two options; you are either an expert on the topic at hand, or you know nothing about it and should be ignored? Of course not.
but an increasing number of issues are being quarantined off by this modified use of what we might call "the Ricky Bobby tactic." In effect, there are already a number of issues about which it might be said, "I'm sorry sir, you must have a PhD in order to weigh in on this issue." This is typically attached to the assertion that the issue in question "is very complicated." Apparently that is the only justification one needs to dismiss anything and everything a "non-expert" might say on the matter. It doesn't really matter if they are right or wrong. They aren't an expert and it is very complicated; therefore, you don't have to listen to them. Reese Bobby would spit out his beer in shock and say, "That doesn't make any sense at all, you can know a lot, a good bit, a little... you can even know just enough to apply common sense to the matter."
Ironically, the reason people give for using "the Ricky Bobby tactic" is that they are "only interested in the facts." They don't have time to listen to people who are bound by ideologies, think they have a monopoly on the truth, and will believe anything that some charismatic leader tells them. Yet they refuse to hear anyone who is not on the elite list of experts who agree with what they already believe. If we are interested in the truth, then we should judge truth claim on its own merit--is it true or not? You don't have to be an expert to be right. In fact, experts get stuff wrong all the time.