[PL 211] Appeals to Bizarro Authority

Arguments from Authority (or appeals to authority) are non-deductive arguments from premises about an expert who asserts that p to a conclusion that p is likely true, probable, or worthy of acceptance. More explicitly:

1. Expert E says that p.
2. Therefore, p.

Now, consider arguments from anti-authority or appeals to bizarro authority. Such arguments go as follows:

1. Non-expert B says that p.
2. Therefore, not-p.

For example, Axel Meyer argues that "Philosophical Dadaism a la Feyerabend will not help you get your next paper published." In response, Massimo Pigliucci says the following:

In effect, Pigliucci seems to be arguing that Meyer must be wrong because he is not a philosopher. That is:

1. Non-philosopher Meyer says that p.
2. Therefore, not-p.

Is this a good argument? Is the appeal to bizarro authority a good form of argument in general? If we accept appeals to authority as good arguments, do we have to accept appeals to bizarro authority as well?