Being correct on an issue is often tempered by the necessary clown-car and selection filter of consensus agreement. It is important to find rational agreement and indeed science could not be credible without competent peer-assessment but the problems of democratic consensus include that:

1) only those assertions considered rational from within a current paradigm, semantic ontology and predominant conceptual vocabulary are considered worth consideration or investment – thus already and implicitly privileging those (bureaucrats, lawyers, administrators, etc.) who have mastered the contextual lexicon du jour; and,

2) the effect of statistical aggregation tends to even out accepted results into a simplest, most easily agreed-upon solution and clustered sensibility towards the center of the bell curve (of aggregated opinion as much as of fact) – outlying results and revelations are unnecessarily devalued and administratively obfuscated by virtue of their eccentric location on the curve.

Being correct is just never enough when everyone else also thinks they are correct, within a widely divergent margin of error. In an era when almost everyone has access to publish or broadcast an opinion, the extent of accuracy or fidelity to truth and fact across distributed information cultures are subject to wild variations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.