My first post ever here but this is such an important topic. If this crowd of above average readers and thinkers cannot come to a consensus, how on Earth would lay people? Science journalism attempts to simplify academic papers for lay audiences, despite some people believing they ought not do so. If not them, then who? There exists an extremely low level of literacy about knowledge formation and especially about how consensuses are derived about even salient subjects, such as man made climate change where the stakes are very high and the impact touches every living organism--yet, there is very little education for the public about how we know what we know. And then there is the additional problem of how to referee between experts, especially in soft 'sciences' such as economics, or even health care. How does the public distinguish who is correct when both sides of an argument are Nobel Prize winners in economics, or when one well-known medical journal say X is bad for your health, and another well-regarded medical journal says the opposite? There must be a way to cut through the haze of competing claims. Your references and links to help solve this problem will be appreciated.