3 ms·

Science is not democratic

• wccrawford 15y ago
  Actually, I'd argue the opposite. It has always been democratic, with the majority beating the outliers down when they disagree with groupthink, even if they're right. It shouldn't be, but it is, and has been.
  • ThomPete 15y ago
    In a Thomas Kuhn kind of way, yes.
  • vacri 15y ago
    If you're going down that path, it's not a democracy, but a meritocracy. The opinion of a noted PhD in the field is markedly more weighty than the opinion of an unrelated bachelor.
• atacrawl 15y ago
  It drives me absolutely crazy when I hear evolution deniers use the excuse that it's "just a theory," as though the phrase scientific theory means exactly the same thing as a theory in everyday layman's terms. I'd go so far as to say that this quirk of the language is as big an impediment to the widespread acceptance of evolutionary science as religiously based objections.
  • ThomPete 15y ago
    I like to formulate it a little different. The theory of evolution is not a claim of truth. It's simply the best model we have.
  • rasur 15y ago
    Dawkins proposed it would be better to use "theorem" rather than "theory", due to this confusing ambiguity.
• tptacek 15y ago
  This is a political story of the most Reddit-y kind. It's understandable how it ranked here; the title sounds fascinating. But the story isn't. I guess I probably agree with the story, but that doesn't mean it belongs on our site. Flagged.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  • vacri 15y ago
    The basis of modern science is rigorous observation, not "courage to use your own understanding". This quoted trait is happily exhibit by the religiose - "my own understanding is that God did it, and I don't care how", a profoundly unscientific statement. Science proliferated under the Enlightenment, but it's refined its goals and methods since then.