If you - the citizen reader - are the judge in this process, then who is the jury? The community of specialists which knows the most among us on a topic. Every individual within such a community will be invited to share their personal perspectives and beliefs on each specific idea within their field of knowledge. This process can reveal the kind of truth we need right now, which is called intersubjectivity.
Intersubjectivity recognizes that every individual has their own unique perspective and no single individual is completely accurate. But, the community speaking as a whole can have much more credibility and accuracy than trusting any single individual to represent an entire field of knowledge accurately. You can see our video on the topic here.
While the existing media establishment has been engaging in perpetual, paralytic power struggle with each other around what 97% of climate scientists believe, Shared Reality - with your help - will simply go out and ask them. Where there is a controversy in that community, we will know it. Where there is consensus, we will know that, too.
Shared Reality can organize all of the specific ideas around any issue and then ask the community of specialists what they agree with, what they believe is relevant, and why. At that point, we will have created the most complete and intimate representation of belief in that community that can exist. At that point, which pundit could credibly challenge such a representation of community belief?
Where we need to know whether it's reasonable to believe whether or not, for example, the COVID-19 vaccines will target chromosomes one, two, and eight, and therefore remove human empathy is a val
We allow the jury to be made up of the peers of the people making the arguments. If the general public knew enough to be immune to disinformation, there would be no need for Shared Reality. How things are, however, is that the public doesn't know enough to be able to tell truth from nonsense in advanced fields such as immunology, enginnering, medicine, economics, or law. The public relies on the media to sift fact from fiction but that trust is likely not well-placed. Fact checkers are no better, because they are middlemen - writers - each of which could be biased, and none of which provides us with all of the details we would need in order to make up our own informed opinions.
We - the public who wants to know things - need to hear from specialists - the people who know those things - directly, without requiring the middlemen of politicians, pundits, activists, journalists, or media conglomerates.
Continue to Our Methods: The Campaigns