Best Of The Public

From Conservapedia
Constitution.jpg

The "best of the public" is a successful approach to education, scholarship, art, sports, science, and biblical translation that was the topic of discussion when Andy Schlafly appeared on the Colbert Report on December 8, 2009.[1] Mr. Schlafly, the founder of Conservapedia, originally coined the expression during an interview published a week earlier, on December 3, 2009:[2]

The best of the public is better than a group of experts.

Another way of expressing this concept is that "extraordinary achievements are attained by ordinary people." Jesus's enigmatic, repeated reference to himself as the "Son of Man" illustrates how great achievement comes from the ostensibly ordinary rather than esteemed experts. Most prophets were also ordinary men.[3] "Experts," on the other hand, frequently mislead the public and promote faulty ideas,[4][5] as "expert" Anthony Fauci with his liberal denial that Covid-19 was man-made.

Examples[edit]

Bob Dylan's famous lyric about not needing experts expresses disdain for over-reliance on experts: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."[6]

Intellectual and other examples using the "best of the public" include:

Intellectual examples[edit]

  • the earliest gospel -- the Gospel of Mark -- was likely written by a non-Apostle who witnessed the events as a young boy, and includes Jesus's advice to welcome good by the public
  • the Parable of the Good Samaritan describes how the best of the public -- even someone ostracized -- is better than a group of experts; the destitute widow gave more than anyone else.[8]
  • Encouragement of Jesus by ordinary, unexpected people who played an essential role
  • Psalms and Proverbs are filled with gems and yet have unknown authorship
  • the Stranger on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35) -- ostensibly a random, uniformed member of the public -- knew more
  • the Epistle to the Hebrews has unknown authorship, despite having the highest intellectual level; it was possibly written by Jesus

Political and legal examples[edit]

Moral examples[edit]

Art and music examples[edit]

(add more one-hit wonders)[19]

Military examples[edit]

Athletics[edit]

Anyone can enter, and winning is based solely on skill. Examples include the following:

Competitions[edit]

Achievements[edit]

(add more)

Science, engineering, architecture, and technology[edit]

Finance[edit]

Exploration and discovery[edit]

Journalism[edit]

Law Enforcement[edit]

Obstacles Created by Liberal Experts[edit]

Liberal and conservative experts have a 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 conservatives who are experts in their own right reasonably fear a loss in grants, compensation or awards if they take a position at odds with a liberal counterpoint, especially one that has gained wide acceptance with the general population.

Despite their status as "experts," they have frequently made wrong predictions.[37]

Examples[edit]

One expert said about the revolutionary design of the Eads bridge to transport heavy ships by railroad over the Mississippi River:[32]

I deem it entirely unsafe and impracticable.

The Eads bridge continues to stand and carry much rail and car traffic to this day, despite the intense opposition by experts to its design.[38]

The Best of the Public and the Invisible Hand[edit]

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. The principle has seldom (as of yet) been applied to academic endeavors.

Opposition to the Best of the Public[edit]

Ordering of the Gospels[edit]

The Gospel of Mark was chronologically the first, and the most direct of the four Gospels. But it was written by an outsider, someone never invited by the Apostles into their inner circle. Mark was a young son of a woman disciple, an eyewitness who was not excluded during Jesus's ministry because Jesus welcomed his mother.

So the Gospel of Mark was misplaced as the second, rather than the first, in the ordering of the Gospels.

Movie critics[edit]

Movie critics try to put down films that typify the best of the public, such as Citizen Kane (1941), Blade Runner (1982), The Thing (1982), and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010). Citizen Kane is now considered the finest movie ever made, and the others were later honored also.

Government restrictions[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. To ensure that only the best of the public was selected, with the exception of members of the House of Representatives, officials in the federal government were not directly elected. The framers of the U.S. Constitution conceived of the Electoral College as a body of men who would exercise independent judgment in choosing the President and Vice President, not merely cast their ballots as directed by their state's voters. Moreover, electors in most states were initially appointed by state legislatures. Likewise, members of the Senate were originally selected by state legislatures. Judges, ambassadors, and other federal officials are chosen by the President and subject to approval by the Senate. Thus, although the people would directly choose their Congressmen, they would only indirectly choose other officials, and this filtering mechanism would ensure that only the best of the public was in charge of the government, rather than having mob rule.

By choosing this compromise, 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[edit]

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[39][40] that this is the greatest problem with modern publishing.

Experts versus the Best of the Public[edit]

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.[41]

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[edit]

The solution to the Poincaré conjecture, one of the greatest unsolved math problems of the 20th century, was by the little-known Gregori 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:[42]

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:[43]

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.

In 2006, the mathematical establishment delivered another backhanded compliment to Perelman's achievement: he was awarded the Fields Medal on a shared basis with (1) an Obama-supporter who had jointly worked on a number theory problem, (2) a French mathematician-actor, and (3) a younger countryman who had achieved far less. This four-way split of the prize with far less significant achievements was inappropriate. Perelman declined this prize also.

References[edit]

  1. The Colbert Report Videos: Andy Schlafly, ColbertNation.com, December 08, 2009.
  2. Tom Breen. Blessed are the conservative in Bible translation, Yahoo! News, December 03, 2009.
  3. In early February 2010, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas implicitly endorsed the concept of the "best of the public" with this response to a question by a state college student:
    I think there are smart kids a lot of places. ... [T]here is a bias. If you look at smart bloggers — or self-proclaimed smart bloggers — they referred to my clerks last year as TTT — 'third tier trash.' That's the attitude that you're up against.
    [1]
  4. Duke, Selwyn (April 21, 2019). Tucker on “The Smartest People in the World”: Why Are They Wrong on Everything?! The New American. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  5. Cohen, Adriana (December 27, 2019). Ignore the So-Called Experts; They Keep Getting It Wrong. RealClearPolitics. Retrieved December 29, 2019.
  6. from Subterranean Homesick Blues, on Bringing it All Back Home (Columbia 1965).
  7. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/647747/famous-novelists-early-careers
  8. Mark 12:41-44
  9. http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/
  10. However, he was the son of a famous one; in fact when the five finalists were announced for the second design round, the telegram of congratulations was errantly sent to his father.
  11. http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2760:homeschoolers-count-national-math-competition-bans-homeschoolers&catid=49:people&Itemid=132
  12. http://www.snopes.com/college/homework/unsolvable.asp
  13. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/spending-153-edward-durr-ousts-nj-senate-leader-sweeney/ar-AAQk4fy
  14. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/opinion/recalling-the-first-recall.html?pagewanted=1
  15. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/summit-not-just-another-talkfest/story-e6frg726-1111115465754
  16. "I wasn't a hero," Lenny Skutnik said. "I was just someone who helped another human being. We're surrounded by heroes. What made this different was that it was caught on film and went all over the world." [2]
  17. here was a song on the album called ‘Please Find Me,’ and for some reason the engineer rolled over it. It got erased. We spent hours looking for it. We fired the engineer and put ‘Sunshine’ in its place.” [3]
  18. "There's just something about the way its hook — a sample from Queen and David Bowie's Under Pressure — grabs you and flings you out onto the dance floor." [4]
  19. List of the top 50 one-hit wonders of all time
  20. http://www.acepilots.com/wwi/us_rickenbacker.html
  21. http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-gettysburg
  22. Since 1990 there has been a qualifying requirement of reasonable success at a prior event.
  23. In the 1920s it was open to all; now there is a qualifying process for teams.
  24. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/5/newsid_2798000/2798971.stm
  25. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/summer-olympics-bob-beamon.html
  26. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2017/08/05/nbcs-sunday-night-football-honored-by-hall-of-fame/104322286/
  27. Warner is only of only two quarterbacks who led two different teams to the Super Bowl, participating in three and winning one.
  28. http://evangelicalfocus.com/lifetech/4555/NBA_MVP_Antetokounmpo_walks_by_faith_
  29. http://www.davidpietrusza.com/Plunkett.html
  30. One Last Strike. LaRussa, Tony, with Rick Hummel. 2012, Harper Collins Publishers, ISBN 978-0-06-220738-8, p. 41-42
  31. http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2018/01/24/chipper-jones-hall-of-fame-by-the-numbers-atlanta-braves/
  32. 32.0 32.1 https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eads/peopleevents/p_jbeads.html
  33. "Then, in 1943, Mary Hunt, a lab worker in Peoria, Illinois brought in a cantaloupe melon. It was said to have been infected with a 'pretty, golden mould'. This mould was 'Penicillium chrysogeum'. It yielded about 200 times as much penicillin as Fleming's mould. Florey used x-rays to mutate the mould, which eventually gave 1000 times the yield of penicillin from the original." [5]
  34. Fernandez, Richard. "A Wired World in its Own Mirror." March 11, 2011. Pajamas Media. http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/03/11/a-wired-world-in-its-own-mirror/?singlepage=true
  35. http://ireport.cnn.com
  36. http://ureport.foxnews.com
  37. Williams, Walter E. (July 25, 2018). Can We Trust Experts? The New American. Retrieved July 28, 2018.
  38. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eads/sfeature/sf_footage.html
  39. Paul Biba. Self-publishing, E-books, and Legitimacy: Part 3 of a series, teleread.org, September 18th, 2009.
  40. "Prime Palaver #6", Eric Flint
  41. See, e.g., the movie "Dark Matter" for a candid portrayal of academic credentialing.
  42. Grigory Perelman Biography (emphasis added), Encyclopedia of World Biography.
  43. Mike Ciavarella. Perelman limit case: not a single paper, refuse the Field medal, refuse reviewers, imechanica.org, June 17, 2008.

See also[edit]


Categories: [Conservapedia] [Best of the Public]


Download as ZWI file | Last modified: 02/10/2023 16:32:55 | 1 views
☰ Source: https://www.conservapedia.com/Best_of_the_public | License: CC BY-SA 3.0

ZWI signed:
  Encycloreader by the Knowledge Standards Foundation (KSF) ✓[what is this?]