> Do we need institutions to give us actionable information? We're at a point where scientific work is the sum of an enormous number of specialists, most of wh

> Do we need institutions to give us actionable information? We're at a point where scientific work is the sum of an enormous number of specialists, most of whom are only marginally able to judge the work of those outside their field. That implies that, to engage with a scientific fact (say, global warming) you are always engaging with a gigantic aggregate of facts from an enormous variety of disciplines. It's just not realistic for a layperson to absorb all the literature that leads to a consensus and come to an informed conclusion. Sometimes, people who are experts in their fields can do something on that level, but ultimately, they're making those summary judgements at the mercy of implicit or explicit consensus, hierarchy, reputation - all the elements of group-think that make up institutions. I think what you're describing in regards to consensus is just what a consensus is. Take evolution for example: you can't imagine a more starker difference in views between like, Dawkins or Lyn Marguiles over what that word means. So there's a 'consensus', in that both of them are evolutionary biologists, but a dissensus insofar as what they mean by that. People, in a vacuum, have an infinite variety of opinions, many of which are superficially similar, but are different on a ton of subtle points. There are a lot of problems in this kind of setup, but I feel if you're going to call institutions in western society 'smoking hulks' when it comes to trust or credibility, mainstream science is one of the last ones you should come to.