Unless you're asking for money. You're not saying that a self-defined "community of experts" should be above scrutiny are you? Remember Carl Sagan predicting a new ice age because of oil well fires in the Gulf War?
we consult the views of our best specialized scientists
Like Francis "ET" Crick?
Unless you're asking for money. You're not saying that a self-defined "community of experts" should be above scrutiny are you? Remember Carl Sagan predicting a new ice age because of oil well fires in the Gulf War?
No. This isn't relevant to anything I have suggested. What I have suggested is that you don't rate and rank scientific ideas by counting the noses of the pigs at its feeding trough. We do not use popular democratic criteria to evaluate ideas in science. We find our most knowledgeable thinkers on the subject to hand, require that they publish formal papers to exacting criteria, and apply only the excruciating critical judgement of other scientists, selected because their training allows them to understand the issues, to the results.
To do otherwise would be like consulting pigs about proper table setting.
we consult the views of our best specialized scientists
Like Francis "ET" Crick?
Is Francis Crick an abiogensis scientist? No. He he helped figure out how DNA work produces protein. His opinion on subjects outside his formal publishing specialization is so much flatulant gas. Try Woese, or Fitch&Margoliash, for example, who have published under science's exacting criteria for the technical journals, on the subject under discussion.