I know of an example from the realm of Newtonian Physics, where "all experts agree" (except a bunch of crazy lunatics, of course), but are objectively and provably so wrong that it defies belief.
It took me a while to get the concept - during that while, I hoped the "experts" would soon come to a consensus, after all, math and physics don't lie - and when I got it, I understood why I can no longer rely on any expert.
Now, if I can, I look at all sides of an expert dispute, and I found the best method to form an opinion is to follow their debates. Even if you don't understand much about the topic at hand, the respective styles of debate usually make evident who has a good and strong argument -- and who is ideologically blinded to the most simple and fundamental truths. Hint: the one with the Schopenhauerian Dialectics usually is wrong :)
we're essentially running a real-life experiment in monetary policy, without governments, red tape, and years of waiting for permission.
Precisely. The whitepaper itself styles Steem an experiment (although it never clarifies which hypothesis it is supposed to support or falsify). And experiment is the key to science. I am looking forward to how it turns out.