Changes

For instance, someone interested in obtaining a job in the field of climate science (whom we shall refer to as "Student A") would likely pursue a degree at an established university.  In so doing, he would be immersed in the academic subculture of researchers and professors who have already obtained their degrees in that field.  He would be subjected to their political views, preconceptions, and biases, and would likely find that these were presented as facts and as an integral part of the subject.  Any questioning or dissent on his part might be harshly punished.  Ultimately, he would be faced with a difficult choice: abandon his desire to be an accredited expert in that field, dishonestly pretend to believe in the questionable claims of his superiors, or convince himself that those claims were, in fact, the truth.

For instance, someone interested in obtaining a job in the field of climate science (whom we shall refer to as "Student A") would likely pursue a degree at an established university.  In so doing, he would be immersed in the academic subculture of researchers and professors who have already obtained their degrees in that field.  He would be subjected to their political views, preconceptions, and biases, and would likely find that these were presented as facts and as an integral part of the subject.  Any questioning or dissent on his part might be harshly punished.  Ultimately, he would be faced with a difficult choice: abandon his desire to be an accredited expert in that field, dishonestly pretend to believe in the questionable claims of his superiors, or convince himself that those claims were, in fact, the truth.

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.  He very well might disagree with the experts' point of view; at the very least, he would have a much better knowledge of its shortcomings.

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.

A traditional, expert-dominated inquiry would dismiss the contributions of Student B, since he has not an "expert" - he has not received the official approval of the gatekeepers.  A "best of the public" approach would accept the contributions of both Student A and Student B, since they are both members of the public.  However, it would not place Student A's 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.  Perhaps many ideas coming from people like Student B would be wrong, unprofitable, and therefore rightly rejected; the "best of the public" approach recognizes that not all ideas from the public are better than those of experts. However, it is very likely that some ideas from people like Student B will be true and helpful.  This is the difference between the two approaches:  such ideas will be heard under the "best of the public" method.

== References ==

== References ==