Which conscious audience would generally pay any heed to the...

Which conscious audience would generally pay any heed to the opinions of such a person? The practice is extremely rare and reserved for perhaps a few gems that can be found in any given industry and many times they are linked to a higher authority from whom they get this sense of acceptance amongst an audience.

Perhaps an argument can be made that this individual may simply be providing a summary of their readings of different views on a given matter and is thus not stating their own views, rather quoting experts. The slight difference there would be that a person is in reality not presenting his or her own opinions on a subject matter nor behaving as an authority.

Regardless, the common practice is that one would need to have some verifiable credibility to convince an audience that they are reliable enough in their research and analysis to be able to give a presentation. In a narration pertaining to a verse of the Holy Qur'ān, Zayd al-Shaḥḥām asks Imam Bāqir (as) about the words "his food" in the Qur'ānic verse: Then let mankind look at his food (80:24).

The Imam (as) responds to him saying: It is his knowledge which he takes, and he should look into who he is taking it from.1 If one travels on a lengthy road trip and is informed that all the restaurants that come on the way have a real risk of giving the person a disease, would this person rather hold his hunger for a few hours or risk attaining that disease?

It seems obvious that a sane person would not risk it when it is possible to control their hunger, though they may have to struggle and wait an extra few hours to fulfill their desire for food.

If the same parable can be made with certain speakers, who are not qualified or trained in the proper institutions, neither are they connected to a higher authority, and it is realized that there is a valid and serious risk in them causing harm or damage to the souls of the audience members, why then would the audience not avoid them or at the very least be cautious of what they have to say?

Why then do our communities so easily permit individuals who have close to no scholarly credibility, occupy the pulpits and allow their tongues mesmerize the often young and naive audience when it comes to religious knowledge? This is not to say that all scholars who have studied formally are infallible in their speech, or are even capable of delivering a decent lecture at all - however that is a topic on its own and it is something that needs to be re-evaluated; i.e.