The thrust of so many of the “how to communicate” treatises and theories seems to be to take as a given that there is A scientific position to pass on. Very little space is left for dealing with the cases where there is actual ongoing disagreement between ‘sperts about the consensus. Even less attention is paid to the possible (indeed, historically frequent) instances where the consensus is incorrect, and in need of the very challenges which it is effectively blocking ‘by other means’.
The full-bore Dewey approach must allow for such possibilities, and facilitate exploration of alternative views, not be morphed into a kind of forced crowd-sourced groupthink. Science is, after all, belief in the ignorance of experts. It follows that attacking that belief is anti-science. Hi, Chris, Mike, Kevin!