I'm skeptical this is a great strategy for topics in general.

And rightly so :-) This is an approach that should be reserved for important topics.

Instead you need substantial education, training, experience and access, as well as a community

I think you're setting the bar too high. What you describe will allow one to produce new research and that's not the goal here. All you need to be able to do is to pass a judgement on conflicting claims -- that's much easier than gathering evidence and proposing stories.

In nutrition, for example, a lot of claims are contested and not by crackpots. Highly qualified people strongly disagree about basic issues, for example, the effects of dietary saturated fat. I am saying that you should read the arguments of both sides and form your opinion about them -- not that you should apply to the NIH for a grant to do a definitive study.

Of course that means reading the actual papers, not dumbed down advice for hoi polloi.