Peer Dispute When Peers Are Absent

I read the rabbi’s column on the peer dispute a while ago, and I think he provides a satisfactory answer.
However, to the best of my recollection, the rabbi is only concerned with our ability to believe in our position only when we are in dispute with a person who is equal to us in his abilities.
But how can a person decide and clarify his worldview in cases where he is inferior in his knowledge compared to the other/if he has to choose between two different colleagues who are arguing.
When I say “inferior” I mean in two senses (which are not necessarily dependent):
1. In his intelligence/analytical ability/ability to draw conclusions (I assume the Rabbi understands what I mean, the terminology is less important)
2. In his knowledge – Ultimately, logical decisions are based on knowledge and experience in the field in question. A person cannot acquire extensive knowledge in all fields, or even some of them, to the extent that you give him the ability to confront experts in the field. (For example, questions such as: Does God exist? What is the way to achieve happiness? What is the recommended diet for health? Will the death penalty for terrorists reduce the number of attacks? Is the origin of the biblical Israelite people nothing more than a collection of Canaanite tribes? All of these are questions that may have significant implications for a person’s daily functioning, and yet he could devote his entire life to in-depth research on one question, and not exhaust the field).
I would be happy if the Rabbi would explain how, in his opinion, we can trust our own judgment, since we choose to take sides in such disputes.