Maybe such a thing already exists, but if not, here's an idea I've had in mind for awhile - The Truth Foundation. A nonprofit foundation that publishes tables of consensus, amongst experts in several fields for consumption by nonexperts. One of the problems in our society of 'low information voters' is that the media presents all arguments as essentially two-sided. Click on the news and almost any issue is debated by two talking heads, giving the perception that the arguments (no matter how ridiculous) are of equal merit. That is most often not the case. A simple way to determine the consensus (or range of opinions) amongst experts in a field and the money trail associated with various opinions might be helpful.
Many professions already have editorial groups, like the old medical 'Parkland Papers', where the state of the art is presented in a manner that obviates the need for everyone to review all the available literature.
What would the foundation publish? A couple of examples might help. Take evolution for example. A poll of people with Phd's in biology could be conducted. A simple table could be constructed, and to be factored into the table, all relevant survey questions would have to be answered. The numbers of non and incomplete responders would be published as well. The table might include the following:
Many professions already have editorial groups, like the old medical 'Parkland Papers', where the state of the art is presented in a manner that obviates the need for everyone to review all the available literature.
What would the foundation publish? A couple of examples might help. Take evolution for example. A poll of people with Phd's in biology could be conducted. A simple table could be constructed, and to be factored into the table, all relevant survey questions would have to be answered. The numbers of non and incomplete responders would be published as well. The table might include the following:
- Evolution: fact - x% ; Religious affiliation - ; source of funding
- Evolution: Probable - y%; same
- Evolution: unlikely - z%; same
- Nonresponders - a%
- Incomplete responders - b%
Or what about climate change? Poll experts in weather and climatology.
- Human caused climate change: fact - x%; source of funding
- Human caused climate change: Probable - y%; source of funding
etc.
Such a clearing house of data wouldn't hurt. It would tell nonexperts what the consensus among true experts is, any philosophical biases they may have, and where the money comes from that might bias supposed dissension.
Such a clearing house of data wouldn't hurt. It would tell nonexperts what the consensus among true experts is, any philosophical biases they may have, and where the money comes from that might bias supposed dissension.
