Changes

1,000 bytes added ,  15:58, December 19, 2009
added example of solution to Poincare's Conjecture, with extensive discussion
Line 23: Line 23:  
*the design of the St. Louis Arch (competition won by an unknown architect, featuring openness)  
 
*the design of the St. Louis Arch (competition won by an unknown architect, featuring openness)  
 
*the investigation of the [[Challenger Disaster]] by maverick physicist [[Richard Feynman]]
 
*the investigation of the [[Challenger Disaster]] by maverick physicist [[Richard Feynman]]
 +
*the solution to the greatest unsolved problem of our time, Poincare's conjecture (see below)
    
The [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] may be the first to adopt the "best of the public" approach for a scholarly project.
 
The [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] may be the first to adopt the "best of the public" approach for a scholarly project.
Line 60: Line 61:     
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.
 
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 to Poincare's Conjecture ==
 +
 +
The solution to the Poincare's conjecture, one of the greatest unsolved math problems of the 20th century, was by the unknown Grigory Perelman who worked one 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 (emphasis added)</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.
    
== References ==
 
== References ==
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,644

edits