Having read the comments, I believe one aspect is being left out, which is confusing form with substance.
Arguing logically, drawing links between references, as well as writing correctly, in itself, critically, are not materially related to an inherent property of knowledge.
That is, they do not refer materially to the substance of an argument logically set out, the nature of the use of references or the drawing of links, or the quality of truth of a piece of writing itself.
A subject matter expert can capture a truth of the nature of a subject in a few words, possibly expressed without logical structure, without references, and with serious clerical errors.
On the other hand, despite presenting arguments logically, employing quotations, and using language proficiently, an individual can be seriously wrong about the same truth.
The replication crisis shows that in social science even the subject matter experts are often talking out of their ass, even when they get reviewed by other experts. You can't fix a field full of charlatans if you don't let "laymen" argue with the "experts" of said field.
STEM experts reach the level of proficiency you talk about, but social science experts usually don't, so I don't see anything wrong with laymen arguing with social science experts on equal grounds. Especially if the laymen here knows math and therefore understands the quantitative parts of social science better than the social science experts themselves.
Arguing logically, drawing links between references, as well as writing correctly, in itself, critically, are not materially related to an inherent property of knowledge.
That is, they do not refer materially to the substance of an argument logically set out, the nature of the use of references or the drawing of links, or the quality of truth of a piece of writing itself.
A subject matter expert can capture a truth of the nature of a subject in a few words, possibly expressed without logical structure, without references, and with serious clerical errors.
On the other hand, despite presenting arguments logically, employing quotations, and using language proficiently, an individual can be seriously wrong about the same truth.