I'd put it this way.

Current society largely (but not completely) relies on experts building highly complex systems. This includes not only public infrastructure like waterworks, buildings and information systems, but also say the very bread you eat (to get it at a low price and high productivity[1]), the computer we're reading this in (mind-numbingly complex system), the internet. It's a feature of capitalism (really, a feature of many administrative systems and product interfaces) that the consumer thankfully doesn't have to be too much of an expert on say computers (say theory of CPU architecture, pipelines, assembly, etc..) to buy a laptop or use software. The consumer only needs to be able to tell which competitor product is best for his use (although often, as he should, relying on expert reviews). We are good at hiding complexity behind interfaces as well, packaging complexity and hiding away its intricate inner workings. All of this enables life in a complex society.

I think it's misguided or hypocritical to completely distrust experts specially when it comes to public policy, public administration and science, given how much we rely on experts for everything else. It's not even much of a choice, I believe: the fact that we rely on those complex mechanisms inevitably will make certain failures that often demand public attention also complex. Say a food company synthesizes a highly complex (and not present in most natural products), but good tasting, substance. Then we kind of need equally complex review of its impacts on human health. A highly complex computer network will need highly knowledgeable (and correspondingly highly complex) solution to certain bugs that might appear, specially in cases like cross-domain failures where complexity encapsulations fail for various reasons. Think how unlikely it would be that every discipline has been exploited to extremely high complexity, but just by chance we could get away with simple solutions for public-facing and public policy problems.

I like simplicity, and I even like the idea I wouldn't often require experts to understand a public or scientific issue of public concern. But I don't think I'm willing to give up most products of complexity, including computers, medical procedures and diagnosis, and more -- and even if I were willing (I might be able to live with say an early 2000s computer :) ), I don't think it's realistic or feasible to really do that. In part because of collective agreement, in part because of for example the sheer population we have to contend with today. Earlier methods of agriculture for example probably can't sustain that many people. We should therefore apply Einstein's wisdom: try to make things as simple as possible... but no simpler. And trust experts when sensible, when the problem at hand is complex enough to be beyond our comprehension (but still important).

Of course, experts can be wrong, but that is something we just have to contend with (like we have to contend with the possibility all the weird procedures we do to produce food or acquire and purify water -- which are managed by experts -- may go wrong, even with significant efforts to otherwise). We can, and probably should, demand explanations (which may be hard to understand for the general public) of the experts and they explain their reasoning. We can examine and expect that their scientific field is healthy, there is consensus and there is a good level of academic integrity. But we should not approach their well informed opinions on important issues from a baseline of arrogance and distrust, because likely they do know much better, in certain cases.

[1] Modern agriculture is highly complex. This includes special seeds, harvesting machines, soil science, weather prediction, and so on. Each of those is in turn highly complex requiring experts to exist at current performance.