Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay:Conservatives of the Decade

2009-12-30T17:17:08Z

DanL: my 2 cents. feel free to remove

It's time; in fact, we have only two days left to identify '''the top ten [[conservatives]] of the decade'''. The criterion would presumably be the best and longest lasting influence. For example, [[Ronald Reagan]] would be a leading candidate for "conservative of the decade" of the 1980s.

The [[best of the public]] is welcome in this list of nominations:

== Nominations ==

===Top Ten Candidates===

(need to begin tentative rankings for final consideration)

====First Category of Leading Contenders====

*[[Ann Coulter]]
*[[Antonin Scalia]]
*[[Clarence Thomas]]
*[[Dick Cheney]]
*[[Michele Bachman]]
*[[Michelle Malkin]]
*[[Proposition 8]] supporters
*[[Ron Paul]]
*[[Samuel Alito]]
*[[Sarah Palin]]
*[[Tea Party Movement]]

====Second Category of Leading Contenders====

*[[Ben Stein]]
*[[Bill O'Reilly]]
*[[Charlton Heston]]
*[[Glenn Beck]]
*[[James Dobson]]
*[[Jerry Falwell]]
*[[Jim DeMint]]
*[[John Boehner]]
*[[John Bolton]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]]
*[[Rush Limbaugh]]
*[[Sean Hannity]]

===Honorable Mention Candidates===

*[[Alan Keyes]]
*[[Andrew Schlafly]] and the students that founded Conservapedia
*[[Art Robinson]]
*[[Bart Stupak]]
*[[Benedict XVI]]
*[[Benjamin Netanyahu]]
*[[Bobby Schindler]]
*[[Carrie Prejean]]
*[[Charles H. Bronson]]
*[[Christopher Monckton]]
*[[Chuck Norris]]
*The unknown releaser of the [[Climategate]] archive.
*[[Club for Growth]]
*[[Condoleezza Rice]]
*[[D. James Kennedy]]
*[[David Cameron]]
*[[David Petraeus]]
*[[Doug Hoffman]]
*[[Elaine Donnelly]]
*[[Frank Schubert]]
*[[Gayle Ruzicka]]
*[[George W. Bush]]
*[[Hannah Giles]] and [[James O'Keefe]]
*[[Homeschoolers]] who captured all the finalist positions in the [[National Bible Bee]].
*[[Jerome Corsi]]
*[[Joe the Plumber]]
*[[Joe Wilson]]
*[[John Ashcroft]]
*[[John Howard]]
*[[John Paul II]]
*[[John Roberts]]
*[[John Thune]]
*[[Jon Voight]]
*[[Karl Rove]]
*[[Lou Dobbs]]
*[[Marco Rubio]]
*[[Mark Levin]]
*[[Mathew Staver]]
*[[Drudge Report|Matt Drudge]]
*[[Michael Savage]]
*[[Mike Huckabee]]
*The [[Minutemen Project]]
*[[Mitt Romney]]
*[[Oral Roberts]]
*[[Pat Buchanan]]
*[[Pat Robertson]]
*[[Paul Ryan]]
*[[Steven Mosher]]
*[[Sun Myung Moon]]
*[[Ted Nugent]]
*[[Tom Coburn]]
*[[Tony Snow]]
*[[Zell Miller]]

(add more)

== Conservative Quotes of the Decade ==

*"You lie!" (Joe Wilson about Barack Obama)
*"You know babies have finger nails!" (reference to an unborn child in the movie ''Juno'')
*"from my cold, dead hands" (Charlton Heston in 2000 dramatically referring to the only way liberals could take his rifle from him)
*"The [[best of the public]] is better than a group of experts." -[[Conservapedia]]
*"I can hear you! I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" - President Bush to the rescue/recovery workers at Ground Zero
*"Justice will be served / And the battle will rage / This big dog will fight / When you rattle his cage / And you'll be sorry that you messed with / The U.S. of A. / 'Cause we'll put a boot in your a** / It's the American way" -[[Toby Keith]] singing "Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue (The Angry American)" (edited for Conservapedia)
*"I'm just a singer of simple songs / I'm not a real political man / I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell you / The difference in Iraq and Iran / But I know Jesus and I talk to God / And I remember this from when I was young / Faith, hope and love are some good things he gave us / And the greatest is love" - [[Alan Jackson]] singing "Where Were You (When The World Stopped Turning)"
*"Winter getting colder / Summer getting warmer / Tidal wave come across the Mexican boarder / Why buy a gallon when it's cheaper by the barrel / Just don't get busted singing Christmas caroles" -[[Toby Keith]] singing "American Ride"
*"We will never forget" -[[George W. Bush]] after the 9/11 terrorist attacks

== Stories of the Decade ==
*[[September 11]], 2001 Terrorist Attacks
*The "Surge" was a huge victory that secured [[Iraq]]'s immediate future
*The taking, for the benefit of a corporation and higher tax revenue, of the long-held homes of Susanne Kelo and others in New London, Connecticut, decided against the homeowners by a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court. Forcibly ousted and their homes destroyed, the residents moved elsewhere at great disruption to their lives. Then, four years later, Pfizer [[Kelo v. New London|abandoned the project]] for its own reasons, leaving a useless eyesore in the wreckage.
*The Ramos-Compean incident that began in February 2006 with actions by agents Ignacios Ramos and Jose Compean and did not end until their sentences were commuted by President [[George W. Bush]] in January 2009.
*The unsuccessful attempt by [[liberals]] to change the outcome of the 2000 presidential election by reinterpreting ballots and examining "chads".
*9/12 March on Washington
*[[Climategate]]

== Looking forward ==

What will be the most influential trends for the next decade? Here are some possibilities:

*collapse of the newspapers in favor of web-based information
*shifts in education away from bricks-and-mortar institutions
*reduction in influence of "experts"
*rising taxes to pay off escalating national debt
*[[parent trigger legislation]]
*2010/2012 Democrats ousted from positions of power
*decline in [[evolution syndrome]] in academia
*conservative social networking
*global non-warming weather continues to provide proof that current climate models undergirding mass-[[global warming]] hysteria are in truth maniacally mistaken if not willfully wrong
*to the completed [[Conservative Bible]]

(add more)

==Liberals who aren't Annoying==

*[[Alan Colmes]]
*[[Bill Richardson]]
*[[Ed Rendell]]
*[[Eunice Kennedy Shriver]]
*[[Jim Webb]]
*[[Joe Lieberman]]
*[[Kirsten Powers]]
*[[Lanny Davis]]
*[[Mort Kondracke]]
*[[Tim Russert]]
*[[Stephen Colbert]]

{{Conservatism}}
[[Category:Essays]]

Talk:Fidel Castro

2009-12-30T17:08:09Z

DanL: /* Castro Dead? */

I’ve heard Castro called many things, but terrorist is not one of them, can someone explain why he is listed as a terrorist? Also could the information justifying that categorization be added to his page?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:''4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.'' (See [[Differences_with_Wikipedia]])
:see [[Terrorism]] for a description of a terroist. Castro certainly was one.
:[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 14:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It seems it depends on which of those definitions you are using as to whether or not Castro can be called a terrorist. If you are using the first definition, you can’t call him a terrorist (to the best of my knowledge) as the editorial policy here is (or seems to be) that we don’t say people (or possibly just living people) are guilty of doing something illegally (or, one assumes, unlawfully) unless they have been convicted of doing so. The second definition also probably doesn’t apply as Castro overpowered Batista with force not fear. The third definition (the one implicit in the discussion of Terrorism) may apply to Castro but I’d want to see evidence that he actually used “terror” to achieve his end—violence and intimidation clearly were used, but I’m less sure about terror (and if one part of a conjunction is false the whole of it is, so without some evidence that he used terror to achieve his end, you can’t call him a terrorist).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Castro couldn't have been convicted of being a terrorist because he terrorized the legal authority that could have convicted him out of existence.
:::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 15:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That does seem to be a problem with the editorial policy (though I would say he used violence rather than terror to end the previous Cuban government), but I don’t make the policy (I’ve even argued against it). I’m just telling you what I gather the policy is. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:29, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

By that definition Batista was a terrorist with his coup in 1934, just as Castro is, or George Washington for that matter...

It's all about the word "unlawful", which generally doesn't have the same meaning in different times and countries.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== DIctator/President ==

Interesting to note that Castro "has been the dictator of Cuba since 1959 and ''has called himself'' the President of Cuba since 1976," whereas [[Pervez Musharraf]] "''became'' President of Pakistan, ''via a coup''" (emphasis mine). What in essence is the difference? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:46, 19 February 2008 (EST)

:For a dictator, he certainly relinquished power without much of a struggle. [[User:Rugxulo|Rugxulo]] 18:53, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Castro Dead?==
Can we see some hard evidence suggesting this? Just because he is keeping to himself dosn't mean he has died. He is still the Secretary of the communist party--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 12:37, 29 December 2009 (EST)

:Maybe Fidel Castro is alive and even editing this site!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:08, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::Speculation is not necessary here as Castro is no longer running the show. His brother Raul Castro was innagurated as acting President in July 2006. Until such evidence is shown speculation of his death is ultimately baseless. Please do not add any. This is not a gossip site after all. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 16:02, 29 December 2009 (EST)

:::Matthew, you're clueless here. When someone is missing for 3.5 years and there is an incentive to lie about his fate, then he's presumptively dead. Communists don't define the truth. God does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::::In October Castro allegedly met with the leader of Cyprus and a Chinese official. [http://nba.msg.com/photo/0a1W9IQclz2DV Here] is a supposed photo of Castro with Wu Bangguo. It's released by the Cuban state media, but apparently the (obviously liberal) AP found it sufficiently convincing as to endorse it.
::::Obviously it's possible that the leader of Cyprus (and at least three other leaders who have allegedly met him since July) was paid off to lie about this and the photo is of a lookalike (or older). But true or false, matters are perhaps not quite so simple as Fidel simply disappearing for the last few years, and we should carefully consider the evidence. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:13, 29 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Fidel, like many dictators, had body and face doubles, like the one we famously killed of Saddam in the opening salvo of the Iraq invasion. It seems far more likely to me that they just passed a double off as Castro than that they bribed a foreign head of state. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:16, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::::::[[Liberal denial]] illustrates its [[double standard]]. Natalie Holloway has been missing for a period comparable to Fidel Castro's absence, and no one would deny the likelihood that she is dead. It doesn't matter what the authorities might say. But no [[liberal]] will admit that Castro is likely dead also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:31, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::Well, the difference there is that Natalie Holloway disappeared, whereas Castro hasn't been seen in public for years. By that logic Macaulay Culkin is also dead. But seriously, Castro certainly could be dead, but that doesn't mean he is. If I had to guess, I'd say he's not. I think if he had died they would have staged an enormous funeral for him with all sorts of parades, teeming with propaganda. Dictators love that stuff. But that's just my opinion. [[User:DanL|DanL]] 12:08, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Essay:Conservatives of the Decade

2009-12-30T15:15:21Z

DanL: /* Stories of the Decade */

It's time; in fact, we have only two days left to identify '''the top ten [[conservatives]] of the decade'''. The criterion would presumably be the best and longest lasting influence. For example, [[Ronald Reagan]] would be a leading candidate for "conservative of the decade" of the 1980s.

The [[best of the public]] is welcome in this list of nominations:

== Nominations ==

===Top Ten Candidates===

*[[Ann Coulter]]
*[[Antonin Scalia]]
*[[Ben Stein]]
*[[Bill O'Reilly]]
*[[Charlton Heston]]
*[[Clarence Thomas]]
*[[Dick Cheney]]
*[[Glenn Beck]]
*[[James Dobson]]
*[[Jerry Falwell]]
*[[Jim DeMint]]
*[[John Boehner]]
*[[John Bolton]]
*[[Michele Bachman]]
*[[Michelle Malkin]]
*[[Proposition 8]] supporters
*[[Ron Paul]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]]
*[[Rush Limbaugh]]
*[[Samuel Alito]]
*[[Sarah Palin]]
*[[Sean Hannity]]
*[[Tea Party Movement]]

===Honorable Mention Candidates===

*[[Alan Keyes]]
*[[Andrew Schlafly]] and the students that founded Conservapedia
*[[Art Robinson]]
*[[Bart Stupak]]
*[[Benedict XVI]]
*[[Benjamin Netanyahu]]
*[[Carrie Prejean]]
*[[Charles H. Bronson]]
*[[Christopher Monckton]]
*[[Chuck Norris]]
*The unknown releaser of the [[Climategate]] archive.
*[[Club for Growth]]
*[[Condoleezza Rice]]
*[[D. James Kennedy]]
*[[David Cameron]]
*[[David Petraeus]]
*[[Doug Hoffman]]
*[[Elaine Donnelly]]
*[[George W. Bush]]
*[[Hannah Giles]] and [[James O'Keefe]]
*[[Homeschoolers]] who captured all the finalist positions in the National Bible Bee.
*[[Joe the Plumber]]
*[[Joe Wilson]]
*[[John Howard]]
*[[John Paul II]]
*[[John Roberts]]
*[[John Thune]]
*[[Jon Voight]]
*[[Karl Rove]]
*[[Lou Dobbs]]
*[[Marco Rubio]]
*[[Mark Levin]]
*[[Mathew Staver]]
*[[Drudge Report|Matt Drudge]]
*[[Michael Savage]]
*[[Mike Huckabee]]
*The [[Minutemen Project]]
*[[Mitt Romney]]
*[[Oral Roberts]]
*[[Pat Buchanan]]
*[[Pat Robertson]]
*[[Paul Ryan]]
*[[Sun Myung Moon]]
*[[Tom Coburn]]
*[[Tony Snow]]
*[[Zell Miller]]

(add more, or suggest ranking; maybe we should name a "Conservative of the Year" also)

(no more than 10 in final honorable mentions category, those in top 10 can be moved to Honorable Mentions, vice-versa.)

==Liberals that aren't Annoying==

*[[Alan Colmes]]
*[[Bill Richardson]]
*[[Ed Rendell]]
*[[Eunice Kennedy Shriver]]
*[[Jim Webb]]
*[[Joe Lieberman]]
*[[Kirsten Powers]]
*[[Lanny Davis]]
*[[Mort Kondracke]]
*[[Tim Russert]]

== Conservative Quotes of the Decade ==

*"You lie!" (Joe Wilson about Barack Obama)
*"You know babies have finger nails!" (reference to an unborn child in the movie ''Juno'')
*"from my cold, dead hands" (Charlton Heston in 2000 dramatically referring to the only way liberals could take his rifle from him)
*"The [[best of the public]] is better than a group of experts." -[[Conservapedia]]
*"I can hear you! I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" - President Bush to the rescue/recovery workers at Ground Zero
*"Justice will be served / And the battle will rage / This big dog will fight / When you rattle his cage / And you'll be sorry that you messed with / The U.S. of A. / 'Cause we'll put a boot in your a** / It's the American way" -[[Toby Keith]] singing "Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue (The Angry American)" (edited for Conservapedia)
*"I'm just a singer of simple songs / I'm not a real political man / I watch CNN but I'm not sure I can tell you / The difference in Iraq and Iran / But I know Jesus and I talk to God / And I remember this from when I was young / Faith, hope and love are some good things he gave us / And the greatest is love" - [[Alan Jackson]] singing "Where Were You (When The World Stopped Turning)"
*"Winter getting colder / Summer getting warmer / Tidal wave come across the Mexican boarder / Why buy a gallon when it's cheaper by the barrel / Just don't get busted singing Christmas caroles" -[[Toby Keith]] singing "American Ride"
*"We will never forget" -[[George W. Bush]] after the 9/11 terrorist attacks

== Stories of the Decade ==
*[[September 11]], 2001 Terrorist Attacks
*The "Surge" was a huge victory that secured [[Iraq]]'s immediate future
*The taking, for the benefit of a corporation and higher tax revenue, of the long-held homes of Susanne Kelo and others in New London, Connecticut, decided against the homeowners by a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court. Forcibly ousted and their homes destroyed, the residents moved elsewhere at great disruption to their lives. Then, four years later, Pfizer [[Kelo v. New London|abandoned the project]] for its own reasons, leaving a useless eyesore in the wreckage.
*The Ramos-Compean incident that began in February 2006 with actions by agents Ignacios Ramos and Jose Compean and did not end until their sentences were commuted by President [[George W. Bush]] in January 2009.
*The unsuccessful attempt by [[liberals]] to change the outcome of the 2000 presidential election by reinterpreting ballots and examining "chads".
*9/12 March on Washington
*[[Climategate]]
*The [[Conservative Bible Project]]

== Looking forward ==

What will be the most influential trends for the next decade? Here are some possibilities:

*collapse of the newspapers in favor of web-based information
*shifts in education away from bricks-and-mortar institutions
*reduction in influence of "experts"
*repeal of health care bill of 2009
*rising taxes to pay off escalating national debt
*[[parent trigger legislation]]
*2010/2012 Republican recovery in Congress
*decline in [[evolution syndrome]] in academia
*conservative social networking
*global non-warming weather continues to provide proof that current climate models undergirding mass-[[global warming]] hysteria are in truth maniacally mistaken if not willfully wrong

(add more)
{{Conservatism}}
[[Category:Essays]]

Talk:Essay:Conservatives of the Decade

2009-12-29T17:16:43Z

DanL: /* Top Ten Ranking */

== Top Ten Ranking ==

I suggest this top 10 ranking.

1. '''[[Rush Limbaugh]]:''' 20 million listeners, providing an alternative to liberal media bias.

2. '''[[Ann Coulter]]:''' While some on this list only emerged after Barack Obama's election, Ann Coulter has been irritating liberals for over 10 years.

3. '''[[Tea Party Movement]]:''' They will be an influence over the next decade as well,or atleast until Obama's final days in office in January 2013. For the first time in 30 years there is a major grassroots conservative movement. You can thank them for preventing many liberal policies on capital hill.

4. '''[[Sarah Palin]]:''' One of the few elected Republican politicians that truly represents grassroots conservatives.

5. '''[[Glenn Beck]]:''' Helped expose ACORN and led the fight against many of the actions of the [[Obama administration]] that the media had first ignored.

6. '''[[Rudy Giuliani]]:''' I'm sure that many on Conservapedia disagree with his stance on abortion. However, he was the hero of 9/11, the most popular politician in America, and an elegant spokesman on the need for a strong national defense.

7. '''[[Dick Cheney]]:''' The chief spokesman for neoconservatism.

8. '''[[Ron Paul]]:''' A libertarian-Republican whose presidential campaign gained a cult following among young voters.

9. '''[[Samuel Alito]]:''' His appointment was one of the few excellent choices made by the Bush Administration during his second term.

10. '''[[Karl Rove]]:''' The architect of Republican victories in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

'''Honorable Mentions'''

*''[[Bill Oreilly]]''
*''[[Charlton Heston]]''
*''[[Jim DeMint]]''
*''[[Joe Wilson]]''
*''[[John Bolton]]''
*''[[Jon Voight]]''
*''[[Michele Bachman]]''
*''[[Michelle Malkin]]''
*''[[Mike Huckabee]]''
*''[[Tom Coburn]]''

-[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] December 28, 2009

:REPLY: Great choices, and this sparks interesting debate. If I may be so bold, I'd particularly disagree about Limbaugh (he has the numbers, but where's the evidence of influence?), Giuliani (all talk but no achievements except making NYC safer in the 90s, at a time when most cities were getting safer due to demographic changes; don't forget that Giuliani endorsed Mario Cuomo!), Rove (architect of the 2006 loses and a big reason for the complete wipeout in 2008 also, I'm afraid!). But everyone can have his own views about this!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:56, 28 December 2009 (EST)

In the interest of debate, I think anyone who has as many listeners as Limbaugh must be influential. Giuliani had significant achievements as Mayor of New York, just read his bio here on conservapedia. Giuliani endorsed Cuomo, but under that logic Reagan wouldn't have made the 80's list because he once endorsed FDR and Truman. Giuliani could make the list of top 10 conservatives of the 90's or 2000's. You have a point about Rove, he's done a lot of harm and good to conservatives since 2000. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] December 28, 2009

:Rush is an outstanding conservative, but my opinion is that he was more influential in the 90's than the 2000's. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 11:50, 29 December 2009 (EST)

Why is [[Sean Hannity]] only listed for an honorable mention considering his involvement in the [[Tea Party Movement]], which is a top ten candidate? [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 11:54, 29 December 2009 (EST)

:In my opinion, we should switch Giuliani and Huckabee. The latter is clearly more conservative, and had a much bigger impact in the 2008 election. [[User:DanL|DanL]] 12:16, 29 December 2009 (EST)

== Matt Drudge? ==

More of a libertarian than a classic conservative, but his influence in ending the hegemony of the mainstream media has been substantial. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:28, 28 December 2009 (EST)

== "Pat Robinson"? ==

I don't know this conservative, and Google hasn't helped. Perhaps [[Pat Robertson]] was intended? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 23:01, 28 December 2009 (EST)

==Marco Rubio?==

This is a top 10 list of conservatives of the last decade. Not just the most influential conservatives since Obama took office, but in 2001, 2002, 2003 etc. Nobody knew who Marco Rubio even was a few months ago, he shouldn't even make the Honorable Mentions. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] December 28, 2009

== Australia ==

I think that the top ten should have at least 1 outsider and as a proud Australian I would nominate [[John Howard]] who was Prime Minister of Australia from 1996-2007 and is widely considered to be one of Australia's most conservative leaders who was known for his extensive tax reform and a prolonged period of economic growth while eliminating all of Australias public debt shortly before losing the election.

If anythihng he deserves an Honorable Mention for his excellent policies. Here watch this video to gain a basic understanding

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81UUgujTWgc

== General Petraeus ==

I'd like to recommend that he be bumped up to "Top Ten" candidate. While it's true that he hasn't sought the limelight or publicity, that's only befitting of an officer and a gentleman--and his role in waging the War on Terror has been critical. What say you all? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 00:36, 29 December 2009 (EST)

The problem is nobody knows what his politcs are. For all we know he could be another Colin Powell. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] December 29, 2009

== Trimming the List ==

There are some difficult choices to make here. However, there are a number of media figures on the list, and if we're talking about ''the'' most influential, I think the nod has to go to Rush. In a very real sense, he blazed the trail for others to follow. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:56, 29 December 2009 (EST)

Also...as a side note...while it surely reflects well on Andy's modesty that he consistently rejects attempts to put his name on the list, I think perhaps the students who have worked so hard to make Conservapedia a success deserve an honorable mention, for demonstrating the power and success of a very new approach to education. After all, they're the ones who are going to carry the torch of conservatism into the next decade and beyond. Thoughts? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:07, 29 December 2009 (EST)

Essay:Conservatives of the Decade

2009-12-29T16:37:41Z

DanL: /* Quotes of the Decade */

It's time; in fact, we have only three days left to identify '''the top ten [[conservatives]] of the decade'''. The criterion would presumably be the best and longest lasting influence. For example, [[Ronald Reagan]] would be a leading candidate for "conservative of the decade" of the 1980s.

The [[best of the public]] is welcome in this list of nominations:

== Nominations ==

===Top Ten Candidates===

*[[Ann Coulter]]
*[[Ben Stein]]
*[[Charlton Heston]]
*[[Club for Growth]]
*[[Dick Cheney]]
*[[Jerry Falwell]]
*[[Jim DeMint]]
*[[John Bolton]]
*[[Karl Rove]]
*[[Michele Bachman]]
*[[Michelle Malkin]]
*[[Proposition 8]] supporters
*[[Ron Paul]]
*[[Rudy Giuliani]]
*[[Rush Limbaugh]]
*[[Samuel Alito]]
*[[Sarah Palin]]
*[[Tea Party Movement]]

===Honorable Mention Candidates===

*[[Antonin Scalia]]
*[[Art Robinson]]
*[[Benjamin Netanyahu]]
*[[Bill O'Reilly]]
*[[Charles H. Bronson]]
*[[Christopher Monckton]]
*[[Clarence Thomas]]
*[[Condoleezza Rice]]
*[[D. James Kennedy]]
*[[David Petraeus]]
*[[Doug Hoffman]]
*[[George W. Bush]]
*[[Glenn Beck]]
*[[Hannah Giles]] and [[James O'Keefe]]
*[[Homeschoolers]] who captured all the finalist positions in the National Bible Bee
*[[James Dobson]]
*[[Joe Lieberman]]
*[[Joe Wilson]]
*[[John Howard]]
*[[John Roberts]]
*[[John Thune]]
*[[Jon Voight]]
*[[Marco Rubio]]
*[[Mark Levin]]
*[[Drudge Report|Matt Drudge]]
*[[Mike Huckabee]]
*The [[Minutemen Project]]
*[[Mitt Romney]]
*[[Pat Robertson]]
*[[Paul Ryan]]
*[[Sean Hannity]]
*[[Tom Coburn]]
*[[Zell Miller]]
*[[Chuck Norris]]

(add more, or suggest ranking; maybe we should name a "Conservative of the Year" also)

(no more than 10 in final honorable mentions category, those in top 10 can be moved to Honorable Mentions, vice-versa.)

== Quotes of the Decade ==

*"You lie!" (Joe Wilson about Barack Obama)
*"You know babies have finger nails!" (reference to an unborn child in the movie ''Juno'')
*"from my cold, dead hands" (Charlton Heston in 2000 dramatically referring to the only way [[liberal]]s could take his rifle from him)
*"I believe, myself, that this war is lost, and that the surge has not accomplished anything" (Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] on the Iraq War troop surge in April 2007, by December 2008 violence was at a 5-year low.)
*"The [[best of the public]] is better than a group of experts." -[[Conservapedia]]

== Story of the Decade ==
*[[September 11]], 2001 Terrorist Attacks
*The taking, for the benefit of a corporation and higher tax revenue, of the long-held homes of Susanne Kelo and others in New London, Connecticut, decided against the homeowners by a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court. Forcibly ousted and their homes destroyed, the residents moved elsewhere at great disruption to their lives. Then, four years later, Pfizer [[Kelo v. New London|abandoned the project]] for its own reasons, leaving a useless eyesore in the wreckage.
*The Ramos-Compean incident that began in February 2006 with actions by agents Ignacios Ramos and Jose Compean and did not end until their sentences were commuted by President [[George W. Bush]] in January 2009.

== Looking forward ==

What will be the most influential trends for the next decade? Here are some possibilities:

*collapse of the newspapers
*shifts in education away from bricks-and-mortar institutions
*reduction in influence of "experts"
*[[parent trigger legislation]]
*2010/2012 Conservative Revolution
*decline in [[evolution syndrome]] in academia
*[[Communists]] admit that [[Fidel Castro]] is no longer alive
*conservative social networking
*global non-warming weather continues to provide proof that current climate models undergirding mass-[[global warming]] hysteria—fueled by money/power hungry liberals like the already well-heeled and luxuriantly-invested [[Al Gore]]—are in truth maniacally mistaken if not willfully wrong

(add more)
{{Conservatism}}
[[Category:Essays]]

Talk:Best of the public

2009-12-28T15:23:32Z

DanL: /* Question */

== A third "Invisible Hand?" ==

Andy,

I think you may be underestimating the importance of the concept you've articulated. It seems to be that best of the public, when applied to an academic endeavor, creates a third "Invisible Hand"--an "Invisible Hand of Insight," if you will, with the power to lead to deeper and more powerful insights than conventional, expert-dominated processes.

Indeed, it may well be that best of the public is, in fact, the driving mechanism behind '''all''' of the Invisible Hands. Certainly, Smith's Invisible Hand can only function in a free market, where the best of the public is free to produce goods and generate wealth. The Invisible Hand of Marriage only functions in a society where those who believe in the value of the family are free to marry and raise children to share those values--again, the best of the public coming to the fore.

Thus, best of the public would be a central force. When applied to economic matters, it would result in Smith's invisible hand; when applied to social matters, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Marriage, and when applied to intellectual, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Insight.

In fact, best of the public provides a powerful means of explaining exactly why big government liberalism is so harmful. Invariably, dependency on big government intervention interferes with the best of the public, and thus, with the ability of the Invisible Hands to act.

Really, a remarkable piece of insight. It succinctly and concisely identifies the engine behind conservatism. Well done, indeed!

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:18, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:That's brilliant, Ben. You (or the public!) could develop your marvelous insight further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::Well, thank you, Andy! I'm honored and flattered that you find it so. I'll certainly work on this (and I hope others will, too)...but perhaps tomorrow, when I'm not nodding off at the keyboard. :) Have a pleasant evening! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:46, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I think there may be Coase theorem implications as well. When property is owned individually, by the public, regardless of what property or who owns it, an economic system flourishes. However when property is owned collectively, even by well meaning institutions run by experts and people who think they know best for others, economic decline and catastrophe are inevitable. It is almost as if an invisible hand guiding the public works better than the all too visible hand of the experts. --[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 23:00, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:I may work this into my final lecture for my Economics class, which I must complete tomorrow (Wednesday). Perhaps students -- and the best of the public here -- can develop it even further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Boston Marathon ==

It's not quite true that "anyone can enter" the Boston Marathon--I cannot,as I have yet to meet their standard of completing a marathon with a time better than 3 hours 10 minutes (the minimum required for a male in my age group). [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 00:54, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That's a new strict condition. Good point to raise it. I'll replace the Boston Marathon with the New York Marathon to avoid that issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::It's interesting to note that the Boston Marathon has resulted in few world records--one men's and two women's, none more recent than a quarter of a century ago--and all three of those were controversial in some way. On the other hand, the Chicago Marathon, which lacks the restrictive entry requirements of the Boston Marathon--has had four, and the Berlin Marathon--which prides itself on the number of people who participate, and also doesn't appear to have an entrance requirement--has had 7, the most of any marathon. This would seem to be strong corroborative evidence that the best of the public principle is valid; otherwise, you'd expect the races that only allow "expert" runners to produce the most records. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's an intriguing insight, Ben--you should add it to the article, and I should consider setting my marathon goals "lower" and find a cheap flight to Berlin!! [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 19:40, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::The Chicago Marathon actually sets so many records because it is held in a very mild time of year, and Chicago is an incredibly flat city. The Fargo Marathon features a similar route without hills, and is used by many to qualify to the Boston Marathon.--[[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 23:09, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Would somebody please add to our [[Marathon]] article the number and type of records set at each major venue? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:48, 26 December 2009 (EST)

The [[Boston Marathon]] is only for runners who have completed at least one marathon, and they must meet the designated time standard that corresponds with their age group [http://www.marathonguide.com/news/regfeatures/BostonQualifying.cfm]

The [[US Open]] tennis championship runs a free qualifying tournament beforehand, [http://queens.about.com/cs/sports/a/us_open.htm]
but top players don't have to qualify.

The US Open chess tournament has a $135 registration fee (waived for grandmasters).

So there is somewhat of a [[barrier to entry]], but it seems intended just to weed out people who aren't serious about competing. It's not like academic [[peer review]], which is often abused to censor new ideas that challenge the mainstream. In America, many sports and games are genuine arenas of competition where skill and ability can rise to the surface. (I must make an article about this.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:44, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:I think that's a good distinction to make, Ed. If I really wanted to run in the Boston Marathon, I could go out and run around my block to train. Eventually, I'd be in good enough shape to make the grade, and could easily do so by running in a smaller marathon. I wouldn't have to go to "Marathon School," or establish my bonafides; there wouldn't be a panel of marathon runners sitting in judgment to determine whether or not my running technique was worthy of inclusion. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:55, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Kasparov vs. the World ==

This is a fascinating article and I'm sure you're on to something here. I have another apparent "counterexample", the close consideration of which I hope can lead to new insights on this topic, and I certainly don't expect to refute it. In 1999 the chess champion Kasparov played a match in which his opponent's moves were decided by popular vote. More than 50,000 players participated, but Kasparov emerged victorious nonetheless. Do you have any reflections on this match, and can it help refine the notion of "best of the public"? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:47, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That seems much more like an example of mob rule than of Best of the Public! If the opponent's moves were the ''best'' suggested moves rather than just the ones the mob voted for, I suspect Kasparov would have had a harder time. What we're doing here at CP isn't decided by popular vote of 50,000 random people; rather it is truly the best of the public. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 19:55, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::Daniel raises an excellent point. Simple majority vote doesn't ensure that the best of the public will prevail. If anything, it makes it very difficult. Suppose ten of those 50,000 players were capable of beating Kasparov. All of them saw clearly which moves would defeat him; all of them voted for those moves. Unfortunately, twenty thousand not-so-good players all voted for a different set of moves--resulting in a win for Kasparov. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:03, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::Benp hits it right on the nose. Kasparov's victory just shows he's better than the average chess player, since good and bad players voting on moves will be average. We already knew Kasparov was better than average. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Super point by JimR, and even better responses. As noted in response, we don't decide by majority vote here. The winner of a gold medal at the Olympics is not chosen by popular vote either.

::::The better analogy is if Kasparov played a "best of the public" opponent consisting of a ''Conservapedia''-like, rule-based process for welcoming, accepting, debating and then making each move. Timing would be an obstacle but in the real pursuit of knowledge there are no constraints of chess clocks. Kasparov would lose a contest against the best of the public. Indeed, if the best of the public could use computers, as our best of the public can, there would be no doubt that Kasparov would lose.

::::Thanks for the tantalizing point that illustrates how powerful the "best of the public" is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Ah, you're right of course! But that there could be ten of those (non-expert) players capable of beating him seems extremely unlikely to me -- any such player could turn professional and make large sums of money, and so probably would for economic reasons. On the other hand I am sure that for each move, there were members of the public who found the ideal move, one which would give the best overall chance. Can this fit into the theory? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Although I am not sure of the exact situation in this particular game, I have seen games played on other forums following this format. What tends to happen is one or two people (self titled "experts" usually) monopolize the conversation and shut out the rest of the people who want to contribute. Since the public views are largely ignored by a vocal minority who are more interested in self aggrandizement than success, the process results inevitably in failure.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::As an interesting aside, this is perhaps much why Wikipedia is such a failure - a vocal minority want to argue and set aside the persuasive arguments of others primarily for their own sense of well being rather than helping the project.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Brilliant point. I suppose it is a thin line between the "best of the public" and the "worst of the public"! Wikipedia, with its lack of meaningful rules, approaches the "worst of the public." As with the US Constitution, the rules make all the difference in bringing out the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

A better analogy with the advancement of knowledge would be Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against the best of the public. Kasparov would lose nearly all of those games. Limiting the contests to just one game at a time artificially helps Kasparov in a way that is not realistic in the search for knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Actually, this is a common event in chess (called a "simul" for short), in which a grandmaster plays a large number of members of the public at once. Usually the master dominates the event, while losing a few games -- in one performance the great Jose Raul Capablanca played 103 games simultaneously, winning 102 of them and settling for a draw in the other. Kasparov has played these too and I don't think he ever lost nearly all. Now, perhaps this isn't the "best of the public" he's up against, but if he's playing against more specialized members of the public, aren't these just more experts? Understand that I appreciate this observation, and I'm just hoping to refine my understanding of it! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 22:05, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::What I don't think has happened yet, Jim, is the type of process Andy's describing: determining the next move not by majority vote, but by the sort of group deliberation, collaboration, and consideration that routinely takes place here on Conservapedia. As pointed out, time would be a factor in that, since such deliberation takes time. If we remove the time factor, though, it could very well be that the best of the public would be able to collaborate to determine superior moves. Certainly, it would be an intriguing experiment. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::It occurs to me that the most interesting experiment might be one that just cut Kasparov out entirely-- Have a chess match between the mob and the Best of the Public. Let one side's moves be determined by a majority vote and the other's by the Best of the Public. Can there be any doubt who would win? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 22:25, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Having a chess game where the public goes up against the public is an interesting concept, but wouldn't prove anything. It is a fairly safe assumption to make that we don't share brain power or intelligence directly with other human beings. We can collaborate and share ideas, which can lead to new discoveries, but I can't add my brain power directly to BenP's intelligence, and Andy can't use mine. One other thing: what exactly makes the 'best of the public'? Is it Education, scope or depth of knowledge, morals? Is it an amalgamation of traits, and if so, which traits? In my opinion it begets a slippery slope. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 22:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::In response to JimR, I am familiar with those simultaneous matches, and I recall my brother [[User:RSchlafly]] competing in one as a youngster (and as a member of the public) when a grandmaster visited our small town. As I recall, the expert beat everyone except RSchlafly, who was then playing simply as a random young member of the public.

:::::But while that made for a powerful childhood experience, it wasn't what I really meant here. I suggested Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against opponents, ''each'' of whom consisted of a process generating the best of the public. If Kasparov focused all his efforts on one or two of those matches, then he might win those, but he would lost perhaps 98% of the matches overall (simultaneous matches are difficult for the person who must hop from board to board). This set-up of course allows the public to harness its greater numbers to its advantage, as often many minds are better than one. But this is a closer analogy to the advancement of knowledge than artificially limiting the contest to merely one chess match between one man and everyone else, a structure that benefits the one man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

To me, the idea of the public, collectively knowing what is a better solution, or having the power to best the so-called experts, mirrors the ideas put forward by Ronald Reagan.

It was Reagan, at his first inauguration, who famously declared that '''"in this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; ''government is the problem.''"''' President Reagan went on to outline his idea that the "common citizen" was more likely to come up with the right solutions to our problems than all the government "experts" combined.

Of course it is a proven fact that all of the great innovations of America have come from the public, not experts or Big Government. Perhaps I am being too obtuse here, drawing a comparison to the ideas of Reagan and Andy's point. To me the similarities seem striking! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:42, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==What's the difference between "experts" and "the best of the public?"==
:This is an interesting discussion, though I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between an expert and the "best of the public." Isn't an expert precisely that, someone among the public who was gifted enough at something to go through specialized training and become even better? From my own experience, I had a certain degree of musical talent as a child, but would not have excelled had it not been for great teachers and hours of hard work. I calculated the other day that I've practiced the piano somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 hours in my lifetime, with probably around 2000 of those being intensive private work with a teacher of some kind. It's probably true that one of my gifted 10-year-old students could play better on a good day than I could on a bad day, but the experience does count for a lot.

:I realize that when it comes to certain problems (the kind of systemic problems Reagan talked about come to mind), common sense counts for a lot more than expertise. But at any rate, I don't see how translating the Bible or playing chess is more a matter of common sense than experience. That's why Kasparov vs. the World shows precisely that talent and expertise can beat amateurs putting their heads together. Having thousands of hours of work under your belt gives you a much more comprehensive perspective, much more depth, than having a few good and untested ideas. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:03, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::I agree completely, and I feel you are exposing an aspect of the problem which needs to come to light. There is a difference between [[expertise]] (as in actually having the skill of playing the piano well) and holding the status of an [[expert]]. Expertise must be manifested, while being called an expert is often only political.

::They awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore, even though he knows nothing about [[global warming]] science and has been scolded by British courts for lying to the public. He's an example of the kind of "expert" who retards progress in science and the humanities.

::The promise of online encyclopedia projects is that contributors with true expertise (such as yourself) will emerge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:32, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Excellent points, but in response to JDWpianist an "expert" is a particular type of person who pursued a particular credentialing path. It usually entails years of specialized learning from ages 16 to 25, at the sacrifice of other activities or pursuits. Typically experts are from middle or upper class families that value credentials. Women who have children during those ages -- the most natural ages for childbearing, are disqualified. Also, criticizing the mainstream or saying something politically incorrect is a disqualification. Only a tiny percentage of the public fits this narrow track of an "expert".

:::The best of the public draws on the entire population, including those who worked full time during the formative age group but developed expertise later, and those who reject the politics of academia. With the far greater numbers and freedom from political restraints (politics in the sense of political correctness), the "best of the public" is far better and yet is remains a largely untapped resource. Obviously there is self-interested opposition by entrenched interests to even developing this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:48, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::(Replying to TK above) An excellent modern example of one person getting the answer when hundreds of government experts were failing is the [[Challenger disaster]]. It was maverick physicist [[Richard Feynmann]] who deduced that rubber sealing rings exposed to excessive cold had cracked. Meanwhile, all the "experts" were going through a process that almost seemed designed to '''hide''' this fact.

::Of course, if Feynmann weren't a celebrity he never would have been able to penetrate the stonewall of the investigation (coverup?), but that's precisely my point. At Conservapedia (and some other online encyclopedia projects), we are opening up the possibility of criticizing the mainstream - and we are showing the mainstream to be wildly incorrect in many instances. The recent exposure of the climate fraud (see [[Climategate]]) is something we've been covering here for over 2 years.

::But it's not just us on the Internet (a purely American invention, by the way). It's American democracy, with [[freedom of the press]], which allows the best ideas to bubble up and reach the surface. No one can put a lid on the truth here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:11, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Ed brings up an interesting example, and I can think of a few other cases in the sciences where a non-expert or group of non-experts has had important ideas. It would be an interesting experiment to attempt to harness the "best of the public" toward a specific problem in science. For example, if I set up a Wiki with rules along the lines of CP (or even just used CP), recruited helpful and skilled editors, and had access to the most important data, what is the chance that the editors would be able to improve on the theory of relativity, showcasing the power of the "best of the public"? I think the answer is probably no. But perhaps such a program could succeed with something a little easier first. I more interested in the principle of the thing and the limitations of the BoP methodology. Do you think it would be possible to utilize the best of the public in such a manner, toward a very specific goal? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 10:43, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::::Well, let's take a slightly different example. If you took a group of students and showed them an "unsolvable" math problem, what are the odds that the best of them would be able to solve it, when the solution had eluded the experts for years? Of course, this is a little bit of a trick question, as it actually happened--George Dantzig, a student, copied down two problems from the board. Not realizing that they were on the board as examples of theorems for which nobody had been able to work out a proof, he proceeded to do exactly that. Had he known that the problems were "unsolvable"--in other words, had he been more fully immersed in the subculture of expertise--he likely wouldn't have even attempted to solve them. It might not work so well all the time, but it undoubtedly works. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:52, 18 December 2009 (EST)

'''To Andy:''' That's an interesting distinction, the first time I've heard it put that way. Still one point for me is unclear. Are you saying that the "best of the public," as per your definition, is made up of people who '''do''' have expertise in a field, just not the credentials required for them to be called "experts?" Or are you saying, rather, that one does not need to invest time and hard work in a field at all to contribute meaningfully to it?

'''To Ed:''' There's a certain blindspot that can indeed occur with experts: I'm no conspiracy theorist, so I'll always assume "groupthink" over "coverup" in these types of situations unless extraordinary evidence surfaces. As to this blindspot, I'm reminded of a quote from the great British music-critic Donald Francis Tovey, noting that when approaching certain complex musical passages, analysts can be guilty of "making an exhaustive chemical analysis of a plum-pudding and omitting to ascertain that the cook had boiled it in a cloth." Sometimes the simplest explanations are invisible to the technically-minded experts, but we also can't forget that the right answers are always found by people who know their stuff, whatever their credentials. In other words, Joe the Plumber could not have made any meaningful guess as to what brought the Challenger down. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:15, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:JDWpianist, you still seem to cling to the "expert" point of view, as though being "smart" means having superb insights, while not being "smart" means an incapability to do so. In fact, excellence can appear from unexpected places. Bob Beamon set a record for the long jump that lasted perhaps 30 years even though he was not generally a great long-jumper. Or purely mechanically, a broken clock is ''more'' precise than a working clock is, twice a day. Some of the very best songs (e.g., American Pie) have been by artists incapable of anything comparable.

:Whether you understand occasional insights as inspired achievement, the work of the Spirit, or simply luck, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that greatness often comes from outside of the recognized experts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::But how to decide when a broken clock is precise? To check the two times a day, you need another chronometer, i.e., a kind of expert in time-keeping :-)
::It's the same problem as with Perelman's proof: you need someone to recognize that something marvelous has happened.
::Take for instance the ''squaring of a circle''. Every mathematician knows that it is impossible, using only a ruler and a compass. But nevertheless, there are lots of ''members of the public'' who think that they found a way, and are just ignored by the ''mainstream mathematicians''...
::AFAIK, in the beginning of the 20th century, the university of Goettingen employed a mathematician just for the task to refute all the attempts of laymen to proof Fermat's conjecture: many of the public where inspired by Paul Wolfskehl's reward, all of them were wrong.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:56, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::(edit conflict)
::(You can call me John by the way...) Actually, I have a very open mind about this, as it's been clear to me for a long time that creativity and inspiration are very different animals than competence and technique. And all of these are still different from the issue of "credentials" you gave earlier. Your "American Pie" example blurs the lines between these: it was a great song written by a competent professional singer/songwriter. The fact that Don McClean was able to write a song at all shows that he at least knows how to sing, how to play an instrument or two, how to set text to a melody, and how harmony works together with melody. Any one of these are considerable technical achievements, and that's why not everyone can write a song, much less a good one. The fact that he hasn't come up with anything comparably great has little to do with his abilities as a musician, and more to do with a lack of inspiration or creativity.

::My biggest question is still with the definition of expert. Ideas are different things than achievements, don't you agree? Would the Wright Brothers have succeeded without expertise in engineering, math, and a deep understanding of scientific trial and error? Those skills did not fall from the sky. So are you saying that your definition of "expert" is only a matter of credentials, regardless of abilities obtained through practice and hard-earned knowledge? Or are you saying that the "best of the public" don't need credentials '''or''' an ability to turn ideas into achievements? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:21, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::John, an "expert" is someone who has traditional credentials, is recognized by his peers, and plays the system often to maximize credit for himself. If you're suggesting I'm somehow against learning and hard work, I'm obviously not. Contributions by non-experts typically, but not necessarily always, are by people who picked up their own knowledge through hard work and non-conventional paths. There can be "flashes of genius" too, like the woman who woke up in the middle of the night with verses to the "Battle Hymn of the Republic." If you're determined to deny a role for inspired wisdom, then obviously I'd disagree with you about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:52, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::An expert ''plays the system often to maximize credit for himself''. This addendum to your prior explanation guarantees at least that no one will see himself as an expert under your definition.
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 01:01, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Frank, what are you talking about? Let me tell you about myself. I love math, and my career goal is to become a math professor - do what I love all day and get payed for it? Sign me up! In order to do this, I have to make sure that my work is accredited to me. I freely admit that in pursuing my goal of becoming an expert in mathematics, I will try to make sure that my work is attributed to me. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:11, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::*at least for me,''playing the system'' seems to invoke only negative connotations
::::::*would you say that Perelman is an ''expert mathematician''?
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:03, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you're defining expert as somebody who is extremely good at something, as you seem to be inclined to do. If you accept our position here, then no, since he [http://top.rbc.ru/society/22/08/2006/94703.shtml doesn't even work in the field]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:59, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::FrankC, your talk, talk, talk is contrary to our [[90/10 rule]]. Your solitary substantive edit in your last ten is of a trivial nature. Please contribute substantively, for your benefit and that of others.

::::::::In response to your question, Perelman ''rejected'' an attempt by "experts" to honor him as one of their own: he ''declined'' the Fields Medal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::Gee Andy, if you put it that way, who would want to call himself an expert? :)

::::All joking aside, this is a very stimulating topic, and I believe that there are some very vital issues being raised by the whole debate, some of the most vital I've seen on Conservapedia so far. That's why, you'll notice, I came into this thread not with criticisms and complaints, but only with questions.

::::That being said, I'll agree to disagree on your definition and many of the examples on the main page, for several reasons. I'll lay them out for you, and you can feel free to integrate what's valuable to you and ignore the rest:
::::*As my quip at the top implied, this definition has such a negative slant that it basically ensures no one will dare disagree with the formulation "The best of the public is better than a group of experts." It's the classic [http://www.richarddooling.com/index.php/2006/11/08/if-by-whiskey-before-the-campaign-speeches-fade/ "if by whiskey"] problem. When you said up above that I "seem to be clinging to the expert position," I would have to agree with you, but only according to the dictionary definition of expert: "A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject."
::::*This definition lumps all areas of knowledge or skills together. This is especially a problem with fields in which experts, by your definition, simply ''do not exist''. Take your musical examples: it's essentially meaningless to call pop/rock singer/songwriters "the best of the public," because there's no such thing as a credentialed path in pop songwriting. Artists rise or fall from obscurity based on the quality or popularity of their songs, and there's no clique of credentialed pop songwriting academics conspiring to keep anyone out. Therefore, everyone who writes a song or a song text, by your definition, is "the best of the public." These examples, and any others having to do with creative pursuits, are strawmen.
::::*It's the same problem with inventions that represent something radically new. Take the Wright Brothers: at the time they invented the first successful flying machine, there were no "aviation experts." There were lots of ''competitors'', some who had successfully scored government grants, and like with any new invention, there were several competing factions and a lot of harsh words thrown around. This is not the same as a clique of credentialed elitist experts trying to keep the Wright Brothers out of the picture. By definition, whenever something new is invented, your kind of "expert" is nowhere to be found.
::::*Your definition excludes professions where credentials are desirable and even necessary. Obviously, you would prefer a surgeon who's been to medical school performing your triple bypass, or a licensed pilot flying the plane you're on. Perhaps this problem solves itself, because your concept deals mostly with innovations and new insights, whereas these fields I mention require competence and conservatism by definition. Still, it might be a thought worth considering as you sharpen your argument on the main page.
::::*To sum it all up, the definition you created is applied inconsistently in the page's examples. I would recommend narrowing the page's focus to the fields with a real opposition between groupthinking closed-minded experts and open-minded mavericks.

::::For the record, I do think that you're on to something very important with this concept. The dialectic of "inspired wisdom" vs. "entrenched thinking" is a compelling one. As a musician, teacher, and writer on music, I deal with this problem daily in my own work. It's my hope and prayer that after I've become one of those entrenched members of the academic establishment, I'll still have an open mind for ideas that come from outside of the maistream. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:34, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::::John, you make many points in your comment above. The bottom line is that you deny how wrong, how biased, and how unproductive groups of experts are. For example, in the Wright Brothers case you avoid the basic point and instead remark that there were no "aviation experts" at that time. Aviation is simply a branch of mechanical engineering; it existed and its experts insisted that heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible. Similarly, re: music, your comments are again off-point to the observation that one-hit wonders are better than what the "expert" musicians produce in pop music.

:::::The fundamental insight here is not simply opposition by the establishment, but rather that the best of the public really is better at innovating, at communicating, at open-mindedness, at being free of fear of retaliation, and at honesty than any group of experts is. There are many, many reasons experts are second-best, yet you only recognize one or two.

:::::This debate illustrates how efficient a political explanation is. Liberals ''prefer'' a system of control by experts because experts can be so easily influenced and controlled themselves. The global warming scam is just one of many illustrations. Also, liberals rely on reassurances by experts that, for example, Hell somehow does not exist. It's a misplaced reliance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I had intended to just let my suggestions stand, but I think you've fundamentally misunderstood my position, so I'll try to clarify it:
::::::Your main point, as I understand it, is that in every field there is a group of credentialed experts who are the gatekeepers of all ideas falling under their domain. Because of their narrow-mindedness and orthodoxy, they are unable to produce any radically new insights. Therefore, people who fall outside of this group, "the best of the pubic" as you call them, will produce the most interesting insights. Have I understood this much correctly?
::::::The problem with this model is, if there's no group of credentialed experts in a certain field, then there's nothing to compare. If "the best of the public" represents anyone outside of this elite group, then without the elite group everybody counts as the best of the public.
::::::According to your definition there '''''is''''' no group of recognized experts in creative fields; you can't go to the university and get a songwriting degree, there are no distinguished professors in songwriting at Princeton (last I checked). In your last post, you said something about "expert" musicians, but then you're falling back on the traditional definition, not your own. The fact that your original definition doesn't work with pop music means that either the definition is flawed, or the examples do not match your definition.
::::::My basic position is, I'm in total agreement with the spirit of your argument: that essentially, the best ideas come from outside of the established modes of thinking. But I believe the main page does not yet express that concept with clear-headed logic, as there are too many examples that do not fit with your definitions. You've embraced a very narrow definition of "expert" and are unable to use it consistently through to the end. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:54, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::John, I don't see logic or specifics in your comment. "Nothing to compare," you say. Of course there's something to compare: the output of experts to the output of the best of the public. And in every field, the latter wins easily, as the many specific examples show.

::::::::You keep returning to music and ignoring all the other fields, but the same observation holds true in music. One-hit wonders are an undeniable phenomenon, and they surpass the best of the experts. The "credentialing" in music includes acclaim by peers and the prestige of insider awards and status, just as in other fields. The Beatles were experts, yet no song they produced was as good or as appreciated as the one-hit wonders.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:17, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Andy, I guess we're just talking past each other now. That probably means it's time that we agree to disagree and call it a day. Again, congratulations on a fascinating new concept, and good luck as you refine it further. Merry Christmas to you and your family. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:50, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::That's kind of you John. We can always revisit this issue some time next year. Merry Christmas to you and your family!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:00, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Andy, were the Beatles really experts? Yes, they certainly knew a good deal about music and were payed to make it, but were they trained as musicians? Eventually they became acknowledged as one of the best bands, just as eventually Galois is now recognized as a brilliant mathematician, but does that make them experts? I'd say both are examples of the best of the public! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:38, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:Galois is a superb example to add to the entry. The Beatles were thoroughly embraced and given awards and held out to the public as "experts". Academic training in music seems less significant, as John pointed out. But there's room for debate at the margins.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::Andy and JDW are in partial agreement, and I hope the article can reflect that agreement. But as for me, I'll just say that there have been many times when the "credentialed crowd" has used their credentials as a crowbar to hit newcomers over the head when they challenged mainstream expertise. That's the real story here.

::Now, the challenger can often be a mere beginner. I've lost count of how many situations I've walked into, where I could see clearly what others were overlooking. Some people call this beginner's luck. But there are many situations when an outsider or newcomer has been able to point out a marvelous new approach to an old problem - which, sooner or later, comes to be recognized as having hit the nail on the head.

::I might be departing a bit from the theme of "best of the public" here, but going off on tangents is what I do best around here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:16, 24 December 2009 (EST)

== Linux/open-source an example of this? ==

Is this reasonable to add to the [[Linux]] article? I thought I would ask this here, instead of the talk page for Linux, to hopefully reach more members and get some feedback. Even though many of the developers throughout the [[Open source|open source movement]] could be considered experts (in the colloquial sense that they know their field very well and apply that knowledge with considerable dedication and skill) they are not experts in the modern sense. I would argue that the collaborative efforts of the open source community could be considered the "[[Best of the public]]," as even computer users without programming knowledge file bug reports and use the products daily, therefore increasing the quality incrementally. [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 11:31, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Excellent insight. Please do include this example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::Thank you; I'll include this immediately. [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 12:06, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Even Microsoft acknowledges this power:
:::*"The ability of the [[open source|OSS process]] to collect and harness the collective IQ of thousands of individuals across the Internet is simply amazing." [http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html leaked internal memo] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:19, 18 December 2009 (EST)
::::I updated the [[Open source|open source]] and [[Linux]] articles accordingly. Should I add your reference to the open source article, Ed, or leave that to you? I feel we should include it as a great testament to its progress (especially if Microsoft feels partially threatened by it, as other parts of your link seem to indicate).[[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 12:28, 18 December 2009 (EST)

== Perelman ==

I don't know for sure about the rest of the details, but calling him an "unknown" is an exaggeration. Perelman received a PhD from a top university and was already noted for his slick proof of the "Soul theorem" in Riemannian geometry, which had already become commonly taught. No, he wasn't a leading mathematician, but he was not unknown by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 11:12, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:The Perelman example is quite interesting: who ''decided'' that Perelman found a proof? The public? No, a couple of experts... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::What you have to understand is that "best of the public" doesn't exclude experts, or make light of their expertise. It just acknowledges the very obvious truth that they're not the ''only'' ones with expertise, and allows other voices and other perspectives to be heard. Rather than "I'm an expert, therefore you have to listen to my ideas," it's "You have good ideas, therefore we will listen." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:32, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::(edit conflict)I expected the Perelman example to ruffle the feathers of expert-defenders, precisely because it illustrates the point so well. I don't think "Perelman received a PhD from a top university," though I have an open mind about it (I think he received something other than a PhD from an institution ranked nowhere near the international top). More importantly, Perelman was not given a permanent job, was not recognized as an expert, and indeed was somewhat ostracized by the experts to the point where he was left to produce his great work on his own from his mother's apartment. Then an expert allegedly tried to take the credit!

:::Note that Perelman himself has been highly critical of the expert mentality in mathematics, to the point where he sacrificed much money to turn down the experts' honors. Sorry, not even mathematical experts are better than the "best of the public," despite the discomfort some will have with that revelation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::At the risk of beating the drum too loudly on ClimateGate, it was outside mathematicians (not climate "experts") who showed the [[Michael Mann]]'s denial of the worldwide [[Medieval Warm Period]] was statistically unsound (at best) and really just a crude example of [[academic fraud]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Excellent point, Ed. Could you add an item to the entry about who those outside mathematicians were? (I don't know).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:57, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::::*[[Climategate mathematicians]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I'm not arguing that Perelman doesn't belong on the list, I'm arguing that to call him an "unknown" is simply wrong. He had done other fairly important work before this. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::You are probably right about his degree not being from a top university internationally; but it was at Leningrad, one of the top schools in Russia. He then held positions at Steklov, SUNY Stony Brook, Berkeley, and Courant. These are all major research centers -- off the top of my head I can name Fields medalists currently at each of them except Courant, and it wouldn't surprise me I'm forgetting one there too. Perelman apparently had job offers from Stanfold and Princeton -- such offers go only to the very top prospects, and certainly not "unknowns". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:23, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Wow, you're awfully tough on me here, JimR. You can decide for yourself whether you're applying a [[double standard]] in your reaction. Note, for example, in a very well-written article by the liberal Independent, it describes Perelman as an "unknown Russian" right in its headline.[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-an-unknown-russian-quietly-solved-a-puzzle-that-has-baffled-the-finest-mathematicians-for-a-century-538077.html] Is that article also objectionable?

::::::::As to your statement that Perelman "held positions," those positions were insulting for someone on track to produce the greatest proof of our time. Those schools may well have Fields medalists in respectable positions, but that's the point: Perelman was never offered a respectable position commensurate with his talent. Your argument is as fallacious as bragging that a brilliant coach was offered a staff position ... as water boy.

::::::::Tell you what: I'll change "unknown" to "little known." OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Looks good to me. Thanks! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:14, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Manhattan project ==

The ''Manhattan project'' seems to be an ultimate example for a great innovations of America which came not from the public, but from experts and ''Big Government''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:12, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:But follow the project back to its roots, Frank. You'll find that many of those whose ideas led the government to pursue that line of research are a splendid example of "best of the public." Nobody's saying that experts can't take the ball and run with it, but frequently, it's someone outside their little circle who tosses the ball in the first place. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Wright Brothers ==

People seem keen to find counter-examples, so let's talk about some examples. What about the Wright Brothers? They certainly weren't part of any elite fraternity of engineers--neither one even graduated from high school. Their endeavors were greeted with open mockery and accusations of fraud from the "experts" of the aviation community, particularly in Europe. They're certainly one of the finest examples of what American ingenuity and can-do attitude can accomplish. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:15, 19 December 2009 (EST)
:(whacks own forehead in mock despair) I should have thought of that myself! Not only did they make a lighter, more powerful engine, but they weren't professionals at all: mere bicycle mechanics, really. And yet they solved the crucial aspect of [[powered flight]]: controlling the aircraft in the air. Their idea of warping the wings prefigured [[ailerons]], and was the chief reason their flights succeeded while everyone else's ended in crash after crash. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:59, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Galileo ==

Another maverick, wasn't astronomer [[Galileo Galilei]] largely self-taught? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:01, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:Galileo isn't a clear-cut case. He was more of a political figure who was wrong about some basic stuff (like tides). His own contributions were not substantial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:48, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::What's about [[Albert Einstein]]? In 1905, he was an unknown clerk at a Swiss patent's office, but the leading experts of his field instantly accepted his work! [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:27, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::Intriguing suggestion, but also potentially confusing because Albert Einstein is so widely publicized as the quintessential expert today. Someone reading the entry might think, "If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:39, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::It seems like sometimes overcompensation occurs. A member of the public is scoffed at by the experts, turns out to be right, and is eventually put on a pedestal and held to be infallible. I doubt that Einstein would approve of the way people treat his theories as if they were unquestionable. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:04, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::''"If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"'' The same can be said about mathematicians in general - most of the public will shy away from this area. And though the feuds over precedence between mathematicians are legendary ([[Cardano]]/[[Tartaglia]],[[Newton]]/[[Leibniz]]), generally mathematicians are more respected for their work than their positions and titles (Paul Erdős).
:::::But it's a game played by experts in front of other experts: the ''public'' doesn't understand most questions (''Consider a compact 3-dimensional manifold V without boundary. Is it possible that the fundamental group of V could be trivial, even though V is not homeomorphic to the 3-dimensional sphere?''), and even less the answers (''No'').
:::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:34, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: The public is 6 billion people and, yes, many of them are capable of understanding higher math. Your comment, Frank, illustrates the very harm caused by an "experts only" mentality. By false pretending that no one else can understand something, the "experts only" mentality shuts out and censors many people who are brighter and more productive than the arrogant experts ... as Perelman and others like him are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: But Perelman is an expert:
:::::::''an "expert" is a particular type of person who pursued a particular credentialing path. It usually entails years of specialized learning from ages 16 to 25, at the sacrifice of other activities or pursuits.''
:::::::He filled his years of ''specialized learning'' with a degree of a ''Candidate of Sciences'', the soviet version of a Ph.D. He didn't dibble around with mathematics as an amateur ([[Fermat]]), he was a full-time scientist.
:::::::He's an eccentric expert, but an expert nonetheless.
:::::::BTW, the segment of the 6 billion people who understand mathematics way beyond ''higher math'' are called ''experts'' or ''mathematicians'' (well, sometimes ''physicists'').
:::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Frank, you're simply redefining "expert" more broadly once you see how members of the public achieve more than experts do. In Perelman's case, he didn't even have a math job, and he expressly criticized and repudiated the math experts who control the field. Apparently Perelman has even given up math because of the suffocation (and non-productivity) caused by the math experts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:21, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::*When he proved the theorem, Perelman had a ''math job'' (several, I think...)
::::::::*Aren't you an expert in law? Do you have a ''law job''? If you hadn't, would you be no expert any longer?
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:23, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::''Justice'' seems to be an interesting test for your principle: though ''juries'' introduce a public element (I don't think that they are meant to be the ''best of the public''), it doesn't seem to be a good advice for a defendant to do without an expert counsel, i.e., a lawyer. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:45, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::...but haven't you just answered your own question, Frank? If expertise was the be-all and end-all of justice, then there would be no need for a jury; the matter would be entirely in the hands of the judge and the attorneys. However, the Founding Fathers, while respecting the expertise of such individuals, ultimately chose to trust in the wisdom of the public to render a verdict. Would you argue that their choice was unwise? I think our system of justice has worked out pretty well, personally. In fact, I think you may have offered up one of the finest and clearest examples of the principle yet. "Best of the public" is ''exactly'' what jury deliberation represents--the faith that a group drawn from the public, without any special credentials or qualifications, can, through deliberation and collaboration, achieve insight. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:27, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::I like the jury example too. Cases aren't decided by panels of lawyers, but by a (hopefully) representative sample of one's peers, drawn from all walks of life. They don't have to have expertise in law to be given good instructions by the judge as to what laws matter in the case at hand, and they are trusted to use those instructions and the evidence to render a fair verdict. It's not a perfect system, but I feel there are no better alternatives so far. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:02, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== Formatting ==

Would it make more sense to create a section for the examples under the table of contents? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:06, 19 December 2009 (EST)

: That would be great, Ben! Please continue to improve as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:48, 20 December 2009 (EST)

== A different take on this ==

I've been reading this thread and watched the Colbert segment mentioned in the article, and I think I figured out the inherent problem with the phrase "The best of the public is better than a group of experts".

As others have pointed out above, the best of the public are often experts themselves. The definition of "a group of experts" was then qualified to state that it's not expertise that's bad, but the groupthink, stubbornness or elitism that can result when experts in a field have a reluctance to embrace radical change or innovative ideas even when they are proven to be right. That's why I like the open source analogy - Microsoft was content to decide how fast the browser should be improved and in what ways, but the Mozilla project was more innovative because it was driven bottom-up by merit instead of top-down by policy.

Christianity experienced this when Martin Luther posted his Theses. He was certainly an expert on religion and the Bible, but his ideas were out of favor with the ''establishment'' leading the Catholic Church, which was resistant to change. His work didn't invalidate Catholicism, but public acceptance of his insights led to some bad practices being ended by the Catholic Church, and triggered the entire Protestant Reformation.

In short, it's not expertise that's the problem, it's a group of people declaring that they are the gatekeepers for contributions to a field of expertise, and subsequently stifling innovation. What I'd suggest as an alternative is this: "The best innovations of the public can outdo the ''established'' experts". This isn't as catchy as the original, but it seems to hit the core point without sounding as self-contradicting. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 00:30, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:You make some interesting and challenging points, and I hope to respond more fully tomorrow. But as a quick response, I feel you overlook key issues, such as "inspired wisdom" (e.g., Gospel of Mark, or authorship of "Battle Hymn of the Republic") and also how "expertise" can have a blinding effect as well as a beneficial one (e.g., Wright Brothers, Fosbury Flop). In sum, any alternative articulation of the rule would have to explain the many examples, and I'm afraid yours isn't quite there. But thanks for sparking thought about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:21, 22 December 2009 (EST)
::I'm not looking to take anything away from contributions that comes from flashes of insight, but those are really in a different category altogether. It seems like harnessing of the power of individuals shouldn't necessarily depend on some of them having inspired moments of insight or inspired wisdom, because I thought the whole point of the original comment is that the best ideas need to be allowed to surface and circulate regardless of how they came about.
::I'm also not sure I understand how my comments overlooked what you call thee "blinding effect of expertise". What I was trying to say is that when experts form an establishment that acts as the filter, judge and jury of new ideas in a given field, the result can be helpful (i.e. in determining the safety of new drugs before they are allowed to be sold) or harmful (i.e. tying up the use of valuable radio spectrum while "expert" stakeholders with billions at stake decide how it should best be used). In an ideal world there can be any number of experts out there, but little to no barrier for the circulation and promotion of the best ideas from among them. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 08:44, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::ChrisY, you don't specifically address the many diverse and specific examples of where the "best of the public" is better than any group of experts. And I don't see anything ambiguous or confusing about the phrase the "blinding effect of expertise." Becoming an expert means committing oneself to a particular approach, and that obviously has a blinding effect on innovation and alternative approaches. An alternative approach might even discredit an expert's lifetime of work, which no one would expect him to welcome. It's been observed that innovation cannot occur until the older generation of "experts" passes away, and even that the 40 years of Israelites wandering in the desert was intended to erase the debilitating mindset of slavery. "Experts" have a mindset, and it's less productive than the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

It's typical of liberals to muddy the waters with verbal quibbles. Everyone knows what we meant when we said the public can often outdo the experts. The word ''expert'' is clearly understood in that context, Chris, to mean "established experts" or "acknowledged experts". Only a fool (or an enemy) would think (or suggest) that we meant that having expert knowledge was useless.

If I see any more of this malarkey here, I'm going to start deleting comments and blocking accounts. Kindly confine your comments to points that are relevant to improving the article.

It's one thing to disagree, and that sort of feedback can often be editorially valuable, but to pretend not to understand is [[liberal deceit|deceitful]]. You have been warned. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:17, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed, for your sage remarks and policy. Honestly, the more I review the objections here, the more I think it boils down to this: liberals cling to the (absurd) view that experts ''define'' the truth, and can eliminate accountability (like Hell). Such a view is shocked by the reality that experts are not even as good as the best of the public at what the experts do, let alone about things experts know nothing about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::I offered some constructive comments above that were described by others as "interesting and challenging", and now they're "malarkey". Sorry I said anything at all, Ed. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 20:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== Examples, part 2 ==

We have many examples of the best of the public making extraordinary achievements, but non of experts being wrong or creating obstacles. Off the top of my head, Lord Kelvin claiming heavier than air flight was impossible and that radioactivity was impossible. I'll try and think of more examples (not right now, I am leaving for a 5 hour drive in a few minutes) but soon. What does everybody think of these kinds of examples? Worth including? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:40, 23 December 2009 (EST)

:Sounds great. That's interesting about Lord Kelvin.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::I almost think that should be an article unto itself. It's certainly an important topic. Not sure what it would be called, though. "Expert Obstructionism?" "Expert Error?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:14, 23 December 2009 (EST)

:::The obstructionism is a bigger problem, but the error is a problem too and its term is more concise and easier to remember. So I'll start "[[Expert Error]]" and have another entry called "[[Expert Obstructionism]]" that redirects to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::::I would strongly recommend going back to the line of "Expert Obstructionism", which is an actual problem. There's nothing wrong with anyone, even experts, making errors as long as they are accepting of being corrected. To criticize error itself is to criticize the spirit of risk-taking, which I doubt folks here want to do. I recall Edison saying something along the line of "I can fail many times, but I only have to succeed once", and the number of failed attempts at a viable light-bulb filament before his success. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 09:38, 24 December 2009 (EST)

:::::You make a valid point, but "obstructionism" is a clumsy label and errors by experts are a big problem and intrinsically different to correct. An expert's insistence on an erroneous position is inherently obstructionist, so in practice there may be little difference between the two labels. If you see something included where an expert erred but welcomed correction, then let's discuss it, but those examples are few and far between.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:36, 24 December 2009 (EST)

::::::You're right, Andy. How about "Expert Blindness" or "Expertise Blindness"? This is simpler, and ties into points you've made above. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:13, 24 December 2009 (EST)

* As an ethnic Hungarian, [[Ignaz Semmelweiss]]' status as an outsider seemed to undermine his credibility and, despite the clear evidence that he compiled, doctors refused to accept that they were killing their own patients. [http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2009/01/the-semmelweiss-mystery.html]

He was the first to compile systematic and practical evidence for what later came to be known as Pasteur's [[germ theory of disease]]. He was truly the "best of the public", but vilified and rejected by the experts of his time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:53, 24 December 2009 (EST)

:Superb suggestion, Ed. I'm familiar with that case and it does illustrate the point well. Would you like to add it?

:Chris, I don't think "blindness" is an appropriate metaphor. "Blindness" implies an ''involuntary'' disability. Expert errors and obstructionism are very intentional.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 24 December 2009 (EST)
:::For those who are interested in expanding [[Expert Error]], there are a TON more in my one reference that I haven't added (some because they weren't experts in the field they were commenting on, eg, Einstein on geology) but are still very interesting. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:24, 24 December 2009 (EST)

::::I also see a tie-in to [[Upward mobility]], a concept that liberals routinely ignore with a deafening, reverberating silence. They love to pretend that our economic system is so unfair as to be repressive, when precisely the opposite is true: we've designed it to all cream to rise to the top. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:50, 26 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Founding Fathers]]==
America can be thought of as the best of the public. The framers came together as a group, not as experts but to represent the colonists. The nations articles of confederation were crafted in such a way that describes authentic representation, public servants, elected by the public, serving the needs of the public and not themselves. Nobody back then would believe that the public, on its own, would come to the same conclusion and separate from the British Kingdom.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:02, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:That's really odd. I could've sworn I'd included our democratic republic as an outstanding example of "best of the public"--as opposed to the European ideal of "expert" hereditary nobility, or the mobocracy of pure democracy. Did it get removed for some reason? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:50, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::Ah, found it--it was in the text of the article, but not the list of examples. Fixed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:55, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Lincoln ==

Your "Best of the Public" is a terrific idea! I've watched CP for some time and I've been really impressed with the quality of conservative thinking here. I've made my first humble attempt at contributing to your great encyclopedia and I really hope you appreciate it. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 18:08, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:How about some more "humble" edits that are even better? Lincoln was a wealthy railroad attorney, a congressman in the 1840s, has a monument in his honor today, and is praised by every expert from here to Kalamazoo. Surely we can find better examples of non-experts today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:20, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::But he ''wasn't'' an expert in national politics when he became president! [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 18:47, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:::Your example raises more questions than it answers. Lincoln was more qualified than other potential and actual presidents, and it's unclear what you think Lincoln achieved that an expert would not have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::I wonder, though: would [[Sarah Palin]] qualify? Though she's certainly an established figure today, she worked her way up to the governorship of Alaska largely on her own merits, which in turn prompted McCain to select her as his running mate. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:16, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::Thank you for responding to my point, Mr Schlafly. Clearly you are more expert on this than I am and I stand corrected. I simply thought that the contrast between Presidents Lincoln and Buchanan was a striking example of the much less qualified (much less expert!) person becoming a much greater president. Does any other US president fit your concept of the "best of the public" achieving great things? Chester Arthur, maybe? A tax-cutting president who brought honesty back into national politics. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 19:20, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:::::"Alec", your sarcasm is silly, and your knowledge of history is not overwhelming. Lincoln had been on the national stage for years before being nominated and elected president. His contest in 1858 against Stephen Douglas, for example, attracted national interest and substantive debates. How about some substantive editing now?

:::::Ben raises an interesting question about Palin. She does succeed against the best efforts of the experts. She did have an early impact on the health care bill, but perhaps it's too early to assess her achievements. I've got an open mind about that interesting pick, though, and perhaps it would make for good addition, at least on a tentative basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I cheerfully admit that, being British, my knowledge of USA history is not comprehensive. But it doesn't seem very polite to describe my description of Chester Arthur as sarcastic. I understood he rose from complete obscurity on the national political stage to become a much-respected president. Clearly I got that one wrong and I defer to your expertise. I shall try to think of some "Best of the Public" in a different field of achievement. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 19:36, 26 December 2009 (EST)

==Stopping terrorists and other mass murderers==

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126180624205805587.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read Yawn] how many more examples do we need? Here, a passenger - not a "trained flight attendant" - subdued some fool trying to set an airplane seat on fire. And don't forget the [[Colin Ferguson]] case, where two stockbrokers talked it over before deciding to tackle the Long Island Railroad shooter.
The supreme case is the [[9/11]] Pennsylvania downing of Flight 93 (see [[Todd Beamer]]).

Experts failed to stop the Middle East man who only wanted to "steer" (not take off or land) a jumbo jet, fearing lest the as investigators they would be charged with "[[racial profiling]]" for '''correctly''' identifying someone who fit the terrorist profile.

Then there are all the school shootings when a teacher (not a cop or security guard) runs to his car, gets his gun, and stops the killer with a shot - or the mere '''threat''' of a shot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 26 December 2009 (EST)
:This clearly proves why less gun control is needed. The more sane people with scatterguns in their trunk, the less likely someone is to try shooting ("Are ya feeling lucky?). [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 20:02, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Question ==

Isn't this an ambiguous, uncertain, open, indistinct, doubtful concept, like "public interest" or "common well-being"? Who decides what is "best of the public" anyway?

Happy 2010! --[[User:Evelyn|Evelyn]] 11:53, 27 December 2009 (EST)

: Interesting comment, but isn't your suggested focus on "who decides" illustrative of the problem with experts? Why is it necessary for anyone to "decide"? No one "decides" for everyone else, for example, who wins the gold medal in the 100-meter dash at the Olympics, or whether 2+2=4.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 27 December 2009 (EST)

::Sorry I couldn't reply you earlier, but Mr. Poor prevented me from doing it. Anyway, it seems that those examples of "Best of the public" demonstrate that "experts" are not necessary, which would be a great mistake. As an "approach to education, scholarship, and biblical translation", as you boldly stated, the best of the public is still a very open concept, and ultimately does it work only after it has been validated by everybody, or what? --[[User:EvelynM|EvelynM]] 21:25, 27 December 2009 (EST)

Andy makes a good point here, and this certainly works for matters of mathematical certainty, but what about those more subjective instances? Music, especially, comes to mind as a field in which no one can say objectively what the "best" is, nor is "expert" even well-defined in the field of popular music. What makes The Beatles experts but not Don McLean? I believe both were largely self-taught, and neither had extensive training in performance or composition at institutions such as Julliard. The Beatles were more successful, but certainly success does not equate to expert or the idea of best of the public is a paradox. I think Elvis is a better example of an expert, as most of his hits were written by other professional/expert songwriters, and the same goes for much of the pop music of today. [[User:DanL|DanL]] 10:23, 28 December 2009 (EST)

Best of the public

2009-12-27T15:14:29Z

DanL: /* Examples */

[[File:AmesGCPLogo.jpg|right|130px]]
The '''"best of the public"''' is an approach to education, scholarship, and biblical translation that was coined during an interview of ''Conservapedia'' and first published on December 3, 2009:<ref>Tom Breen. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rel_conservative_bible Blessed are the conservative in Bible translation], ''Yahoo! News'', December 03, 2009.</ref>
{{cquote|<big>'''The best of the public is better than a group of experts.'''</big>}}
The concept then became a topic of discussion in the interview of ''Conservapedia'' on the Colbert Report on December 8, 2009.<ref>[http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/258144/december-08-2009/andy-schlafly The Colbert Report Videos: Andy Schlafly], ColbertNation.com, December 08, 2009.</ref>

==Examples==

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] may be the first to adopt the "best of the public" approach for a scholarly project. Other examples of approaches using the "best of the public" include:

*Sports competitions,<ref>See below for specific examples of unexpected, extraordinary performances.</ref> such as the [[Olympic Games]],<ref>Since 1990 there has been a qualifying requirement of reasonable success at a prior event.</ref> the [[Chicago Marathon]], and the [[Tour de France]].<ref>In the 1920s it was open to all; now there is a qualifying process for teams.</ref> Anyone can enter, and winning is based solely on skill.
*[[American Idol]]
*Internet blogs. Anyone can start a blog, and readers read the best blog posts. Such blogs have been responsible for breaking crucial news stories well before the "experts" of the traditional media--for example, the [[Monica Lewinsky]] story and [[Rathergate]].

Intellectual examples of the "best of the public" include:

*the [[Bible]]
:*the [[Gospel of Mark|first Gospel]] was likely written by a non-Apostle who witnessed the events as a young boy
:*the [[Letter to the Hebrews]] was written by a complete unknown yet its intellectual force is at the highest level
*the [[Apostles]]
*pamphleting, as in ''[[Common Sense]]''
*the principle of trial by a jury of one's peers
*letters to the editor
*the design of Vietnam War Memorial (competition by a college student, featuring ordinary soldiers)
*the design of the St. Louis Arch (competition won by an unknown architect, featuring openness)
*an obscure, unsuccessful author, Herman Melville, wrote the greatest novel in English literature, ''Moby-Dick''
*an unknown and possibly uneducated playwright, William Shakespeare, produced the greatest plays ever
*The [[Constitution of the United States of America]]. The [[Founding Fathers]], in their wisdom, chose to eschew the idea of "expert" hereditary nobility, but were also wary of the mob rule that could result with pure democracy; thus, they chose a democratic republic instead.
*[[Andrew Schlafly]] and [[Conservapedia]] uncovered flaws and fabrications in experiments done by expert biologist [[Ricahrd Lenski]] who claimed to have proved [[evolution]]. Despite specific errors pointed out to Lenski and [[PNAS]] the whitewash and censorship continued as they dismissed the findings without explanation or address.

Musical examples of the "best of the public" include:

*"Battle Hymn of the Republic," the only significant song by Julia Ward Howe.
*"American Pie," the only hit by Don McLean, one of the most thoughtful ballads to top the charts for several weeks
*"You Light Up My Life," the only hit by Debbie Boone, was a tribute to God that topped the charts for many weeks

:(add more one-hit wonders)

Specific athletic achievements:

*Dick Fosbury invented the Fosbury Flop despite criticism by all the experts. He won the 1968 Gold Medal with it, and now all imitate it.
*Unsuccessful Olympian, student Roger Bannister broke the 4-minute barrier for the mile, which some experts considered impossible; now the record is 3:43.
*A little-known pitcher, Don Larsen, threw the only perfect game in World Series history (Game 5, 1956)
*David, a boy of slight build, defeated the most feared warrior of all time, the mammoth Goliath

:(add more)

Examples from science and technology:
*the [[free software]] movement and its development of the [[Linux]] operating system
*the development of a heavier-than-air, fixed wing aircraft by the [[Wright brothers]], despite opposition and mockery by aviation "experts."
*[[Henry Ford]]'s mass-production techniques, which turned automobiles from a curiosity into the backbone of American industry despite Ford's lack of formal education.
*the investigation of the [[Challenger Disaster]] by maverick physicist [[Richard Feynman]]
*the solution of one of the greatest unsolved problem of our time, the [[Poincaré conjecture]] (see below)
*[[Evariste Galois]], an unknown teenager, developed [[group theory]] and it took the mathematical experts a century to appreciate it
*Steve Wozniak developed the first popular personal computer from a garage-based operation
*[[Leonardo Da Vinci]] is one of the most well known designers in history, yet was illiterate in Latin, and never attended a university.

== Obstacles Created by Experts ==

Experts have self-interest in defending their theories, even if incorrect, and in perpetuating the system that has rewarded and applauded them. Some experts receive prodigious sums by promoting theories that are false or implausible, either in the media or in courtrooms.

Most experts reasonably fear loss in grants, compensation or awards if they take a position disfavored by [[liberal]]s.

==The Best of the Public and the Invisible Hand==

The concept of best of the public was first articulated on [[Conservapedia]], although the effects have been observed by many great thinkers over the years. In a free society where the best of the public is allowed the latitude to excel, benefits accrue on many levels. [[Adam Smith]], the father of capitalism, observed this principle in effect; in his book ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'', he described how the best of the public, when given the freedom to generate wealth, could generate a net beneficial and uplifting effect that goes beyond their individual enterprises. Smith called this the "[[Invisible Hand]]." However, he confined his observations to the sphere of economics, whereas the "Best of the Public" principle operates on many different levels.

Marriage and family, for example, serve as an illustration of the principle in the social arena. When marriage is allowed to function without government interference and misguided attempts at social engineering, the result is strong families; the best of the public raise children of superior virtue and character, who in turn grow up to pass those values on to their children. This, in turn, leads to a net positive effect on society known as the [[Invisible Hand of Marriage]].

The same uplifting principle can be seen in any situation in which the best of the public is allowed to freely function and attain its potential. Events like the Olympics and the Tour de France permit the best of the public to strive on a physical level, resulting in many new record-breaking performances. While the principle has seldom (as of yet) been applied to academic endeavors, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] demonstrates the benefits that can result.

==Opposition to the Best of the Public==

===Government restrictions===
History demonstrates that the best of the public can only thrive in a free society. The cream cannot rise to the top if it is weighted down; eagles cannot soar if they are shackled by an oppressive government. This understanding is at the heart of conservative wisdom.

For example: it is only in a [[free market economy]] that the best of the public will be truly free to drive innovation, develop new technologies, and generate new wealth. In an overly-regulated economy, the incentive to excel is greatly reduced. Innovation is replaced by stagnation, and achievement by mediocrity.

===Elite gatekeepers===
Likewise, in an academic environment in which elite "experts" serve as gatekeepers, truly innovative research is frequently squelched in favor of orthodoxy and blind consensus. The chilling effect "scientific experts" can have on honest research was clearly demonstrated by the [[Climategate]] scandal. Even when such "experts" do not actively conspire to suppress dissent, their use of expertise and consensus as a bully pulpit can still silence opposing (and possibly correct) viewpoints.

===Mobs===
It is important to note the difference between "Best of the Public" and "mob rule." Simply allowing the loudest or most numerous voices to prevail is not the same thing as allowing the best of the public to drive achievement. Sites such as [[Wikipedia]] operate on the principle of mob rule, and as a result, are plagued with bias, inaccuracy, and an inability to differentiate between significant insights and trivia.

One of the most pointed illustrations of this difference is the [[United States]] itself. The [[Founding Fathers]], despite not naming it, applied the "Best of the Public" principle in their attempts to craft a new government. Realizing the danger of mob rule, they rejected a pure democracy in favor of a democratic Republic--a system designed to ensure that, while all of the public would have a voice in their new government, the best of the public would guide that government as elected representatives. In so doing, they clearly affirmed that they believed the best of the public was better than a group of experts; in contrast, the nations of Europe still firmly subscribed to the notion that government should be in the hands of elite "experts" (the ruling families and nobility.)

===Obscurity===
The "best of the public" must be able to be heard. There are millions of books published, and even more books self-published without approval of traditional publishing houses. Many authors protest<ref>Paul Biba. [http://www.teleread.org/2009/09/18/self-publishing-e-books-and-legitimacy-part-3-of-a-series/ Self-publishing, E-books, and Legitimacy: Part 3 of a series], teleread.org, September 18th, 2009.</ref><ref>"[http://www.baen.com/library/palaver6.htm Prime Palaver #6]", Eric Flint</ref> that this is the greatest problem with modern publishing.

==Experts versus the Best of the Public==
Some confusion may exist over the difference between an "expert" and the "best of the public." The primary difference lies in the manner in which expertise is obtained. Most "experts" undergo highly specialized training, and in the process, become immersed in a sub-culture of like experts. This always carries the danger of [[groupthink]] and the pressure to conform. Also, academic credentialing consists almost entirely of repeating what professors say, rather than criticizing their errors.<ref>See, e.g., the movie "Dark Matter" for a candid portrayal of academic credentialing.</ref>

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. 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.

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.

== Solution of the Poincaré Conjecture ==

The solution to the [[Poincaré conjecture]], one of the greatest unsolved math problems of the 20th century, was by the little-known Grigory Perelman who worked on his own and merely posted his solution on the internet. He had never been offered a permanent job and was critical of the lack of openness among mathematical experts as he described a rare exception:<ref>[http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Mi-So/Perelman-Grigory.html Grigory Perelman Biography (emphasis added)], Encyclopedia of World Biography.</ref>
{{cquote|He actually told me a couple of things that he published a few years later. He did not hesitate to tell me. Hamilton's openness and generosity—it really attracted me. '''I can't say that most mathematicians act like that'''.}}
At great monetary sacrifice, Perelman refused to accept the awards conferred on him by experts after they eventually recognized the brilliance of his proof. A leading expert was accused of improperly trying to take credit for Perelman's work.

The Steklov Institute apparently declined to re-elect Perelman as a member in 2003, supposedly because the experts continued to doubt his proof. Reportedly Perelman has quit mathematics and was "jobless, living with his mother in St. Petersburg, and subsisting on her modest pension." He was quoted as saying:<ref>Mike Ciavarella. [http://imechanica.org/node/3360 Perelman limit case: not a single paper, refuse the Field medal, refuse reviewers], imechanica.org, June 17, 2008.</ref>
{{cquote|I can't say I'm outraged. Other people do worse. Of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less honest. But almost all of them are conformists. They are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest. ... It is not people who break ethical standards who are regarded as aliens. It is people like me who are isolated.}}

== References ==

<references/>

==See also==
* [[Expert Error]]
* [[Independent review]]
{{Conservapedia}}
[[Category:Conservapedia]]