Misinformation threatens our individual and collective well-being by causing us to devalue expert information and instead believe false information.  This polarizes society and can have catastrophic impacts.

Expert consensus, though imperfect, is the best system we have to help us make important decisions to increase public good and keep us away from harm. 

We encourage everyone to trust the consensus view of appropriate experts instead of isolated extremist voices.

Referring to the expert consensus of subject matter experts is the best way to differentiate scientific and other expertised knowledge from misinformation. 

Science is not black and white, and it’s also very useful to understand the level of consensus and reasons for dissent. Clarity intends to do that.

Expert consensus is not only the best system we have, it can persuade sceptics. Consider this recent study: COVID-19 vaccine sceptics are persuaded by pro-vaccine expert consensus messaging.

Convergent Evidence, a new approach to science communication recently proposed by scholar Kathleen Hall Jamiesen, honours science’s norms of critique and correction and the multiple ways a scientific scientific consensus was developed. It’s in fact a strategy to better explain how the expert consensus was arrived at (via an array of convergent evidence) and effectively include dissent.  “To discredit a statement that a consensus exists, one simply cites other respected scientists who disagree,” says Jamieson. However, rebutting a claim that convergent evidence exists requires an extra step: the counterevidence must be assimilated into the evidence that has already been accumulated so that all of it can be interpreted together.  This is potentially a much stronger approach to supporting the public good in the infospace.