|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | [[File:AmesGCPLogo.jpg|right|130px]] | | [[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> | + | The '''"best of the public"''' is whatever dipshit Andy Schlafly says it is. Conservapedia is a freaking joke! |
| − | {{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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 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 McClain, 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
| |
| − | | |
| − | == 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]]
| |
