Changes

On the other hand, someone interested in learning about climate science, but not interested in becoming a credentialed expert (we'll call him "Student B,") would likely study a diverse variety of sources.  Not confined to the insular and clannish academic subculture, he would speak with a wider range of people, and be exposed to a wider range of viewpoints.  This would, in all probability, cause him to examine the claims of the experts with a more critical eye.  Ultimately, his studies would not gain him a degree or the official imprimatur of the scientific community, but his understanding of climate science would very likely be more rounded and complete than that of Student A.

On the other hand, someone interested in learning about climate science, but not interested in becoming a credentialed expert (we'll call him "Student B,") would likely study a diverse variety of sources.  Not confined to the insular and clannish academic subculture, he would speak with a wider range of people, and be exposed to a wider range of viewpoints.  This would, in all probability, cause him to examine the claims of the experts with a more critical eye.  Ultimately, his studies would not gain him a degree or the official imprimatur of the scientific community, but his understanding of climate science would very likely be more rounded and complete than that of Student A.

Here we see most clearly the difference between the two approaches, and the truth of the "best of the public" axiom.  A traditional, expert-dominated inquiry would dismiss the contributions of Student B, since he has not received the official approval of the gatekeepers.  A "best of the public" approach would NOT dismiss the contributions of the expert (who, after all, remains part of the public.)  However, it would not place those contributions on a pedestal and make them sacrosanct and immune to questioning.  Student B would be free to bring in HIS expertise as well; as a result, the ensuing discussion would be much less one-sided and more comprehensive, and thus far more likely to result in accurate and truthful insights.

Here we see most clearly the difference between the two approaches, and the truth of the "best of the public" axiom.  A traditional, expert-dominated inquiry would dismiss the contributions of Student B, since he has not received the official approval of the gatekeepers.  A "best of the public" approach would NOT dismiss the contributions of Student A (who, after all, remains part of the public.)  However, it would not place those contributions on a pedestal and make them sacrosanct and immune to questioning.  Student B would be free to bring in HIS expertise as well; as a result, the ensuing discussion would be much less one-sided and more comprehensive, and thus far more likely to result in accurate and truthful insights.

== References ==

== References ==