What's the harm in making quick judgement? Usually you would be wrong, but occasionally it would add missing perspective and would help solve the problem.
Even if a snap judgement were right or did add missing perspective it would only be by chance, or only useful in hindsight. Such as the distinction between "knowledge" and "a true belief", armchair commentary is basically unproductive even in the cases where it looks good.
Put another way, your question is "What if an armchair scientists' advice was unlikely to help, but still likely enough to make it worth considering?"
By picking 1%, you're begging the question. You probably picked it because it sounds small, but if we could do some task that helped us solve our problems about 1 out of every 100 times we did it, we would do it all the time. And, in fact, we do. We consult related literature that might help, we talk to colleagues whose complimentary knowledge might help and so on.
The crux of the disagreement is in what the probability is. orangeduck's point is that the probability is more like 1e-100 than 1e-2.
