Oh c'mon, you can do better than that! This gives us such a bleak epistemology that it's indistinguishable from nihilism (or at least postmodernism, which is indistinguishable from nihilism). If all you know about someone is that they're an "expert", then yes, but when do you ever have no other information?

For instance, your answer does not distinguish between experts in Constitutional law, homeopathy, Kr/Ar dating, cultural artifacts of the Yucatan peninsula, differential geometry, civil engineering, or wine tasting.

But you can do far better if you can constrain things a bit. For instance, by the time you get to "scholarly articles on the topic" you've already narrowed down things a lot (homeopathy, wine tasting, and probably civil engineering have dropped out).

If experts build something using the knowledge, or if it's a foundational piece of information upon which an evidence-based discipline is built and conducts experiments, it's very hard to have expert opinion not align with a very useful and predictive model of how the thing works. For instance, if you believe homeopathic doping of silicon creates the best semiconductors, you probably will not be able to build nVidia's next generation of graphics chips.

It's certainly possible to overstate the certainty you might gain by reading off expert opinion, but you've understated it by probably an even greater amount, by not accounting for the link between what experts believe and how reality works when being an expert involves ramming one's head repeatedly into reality.

Sometimes interpreting the answers requires a degree of sophistication--for instance, if you ask experts in polar energy balance and water transport about how climate change should inform sanitation policy in Mumbai, you shouldn't expect the same reliability of answer as if you ask them for the likely loss of land ice from Antarctica by 2100, which in turn would be much less likely than knowing (and being right to within 10% or so) the change in average yearly energy flux from the sun as a function of the amount of sea ice in the arctic.

But you can still learn a lot from experts; you just, as always, need to hold beliefs tentatively because they might be wrong, or you might have misunderstood them, or you might have misjudged their expertise. And you also have to ask--what is the alternative? Withholding judgment? Listening to the most strongly-worded statement on Twitter?