In recent years, interest in the problem of expert knowledge has intensified among social scientists. One of the topics more frequently addressed in this context is the relationship between experts and laypeople. This paper examines this issue from the perspective of the concept of epistemic dependence formulated by John Hardwig. I argue that this concept poses a severe challenge to the vision of scientific inquiry dominant in the scientific literature and to the democratic idea of politics. I examine three strategies encountered in the literature for responding to this challenge: individualist, institutional, and epistocratic. Alvin Goldman advocates the first one, as he presents strategies at the disposal of a layman facing two conflicting expert opinions. The second is the belief in the scientific community’s potential to resolve all controversies and protect non-specialists from confronting them. The third is to eliminate epistemic dependence by including only those with sufficient practical experience in expert discussions. In the end, I conclude that the problem of epistemic dependence has no suitable solution. We should place our hopes only with strategies for circumventing it rather than confronting it.