Poor Methodology in Non-Biblical interpretation: Pelling's weak argument

Classicist Christopher Pelling says that Plutarch made up a surrounding scene in which a certain conversation took place between two ancient Romans (Antony and Trebonius). According to Pelling, all that Plutarch knew was that something like this conversation had happened, but he filled it out, stating exactly what journey it took place on and so forth, without any historical warrant. Michael Licona says we should just take Pelling's word for it, because he's such an eminent classicist, without even knowing his reasons! But there's no reason to have such blind faith in an academic. In fact, we can look up Pelling's reasons, and they are very weak, amounting to a mere tacit argument from silence to support the assumption that Plutarch had one and only one real historical source for the conversation (which doesn't mention those details). Why should we accept that?Recognizing that even classicists often have very poor methodology when it comes to non-biblical literature should prevent us from blindly accepting their conclusions and then porting over similar assumptions of invention and fact-changing to the Gospels.https://youtu.be/EYelDR9kFFc?si=ms19s24lG_09I4JH&t=3255