Is it feasible for a layperson studying a subject like climate change to arrive at a point where it would be rational for her to deny scientific consensus? On the one hand, she has whatever evidence she has found to dispute climate change. On the other, she has the understanding that climate scientists are more competent to assess such matters than she is, and a consensus of scientists even more so. How is her understanding of herself as a layperson supposed to factor into her deliberation, if at all?

Read another response about Rationality