That's a different type of bias than driving the stake into a specific conclusion because the other stake moves. Frequently.
To be fair, I think this only because it agrees with my pro-reason bias.
And who decides who qualifies as a "scientific expert"? Isn't that problematic?
Who's an expert? Anyone who can convince other experts they are also an expert in a culture that glorifies reason and evidence and where the most status can be gained by disagreeing with everyone and then convincing them you were right all along.
You definitely seem to want an algorithm for this kind of thing, but there isn't one. It's an exercise in applied philosophy involving building an artificial culture made up of irrational human beings. It's incredibly problematic from your perspective I suppose. People are inherently problematic from that perspective, as is dealing with the unknown. From my perspective I'll take it until there is something better, because right now this is the way to get the best chance of being right about any subject.
If some cell biologist came in here and told HN that GOTO's were the only control structure you needed for programming, although he had never programmed anything but that doesn't matter because he's smart and he reads about programming a lot, people would tell him he's wrong and that this is pretty well established and universally agreed upon. If he responded with "What did you guys do? Vote on it? Who gets to vote?" you would see that there is a pretty big disconnect between reality and how this biologist thought the culture worked.
What I actually want is a different approach that rejects authority.
As to a different approach that rejects authority ... What would that look like? Would we not value expertise anymore? Would there be no expertise anymore? I like being allowed to get good at something by putting in effort ... and once I do I'm going to be right about the subject more often than those who haven't put in effort. And people will notice that and listen to me, they will value my opinion more than others.
I'm pretty lost as to how this dynamic could be broken in a non-nightmarish way.
Being right more often does not mean you're right in any particular dispute, so how exactly does it matter? Every dispute has to be resolved based on the actual ideas in question, not the authority of the person who said a particular idea.
The Earth's climate is an enormously complex mechanism that is barely understood, and there is a tendency to make models that confirm a hypothesis (just read this today - http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/02/15/rapidly_warming.... That sort of nuttery from the other side would get eviscerated, but it sells to an agenda).