2 ms·

> I strongly disagree, it's inherently democratic. No, it really is not. You might as well state that truth is decided by committee and that individuals canno

> I strongly disagree, it's inherently democratic. No, it really is not. You might as well state that truth is decided by committee and that individuals cannot or should not decide what is true for themselves. Democracy is a tool, not an inherent virtue. If science was inherently democratic, The Science would be "settled"; such is a state of things that has been demonstrated time and again to discredit consent. Just because a bunch of people, no matter the number or expertise, decide that something is a fact doesn't make it so. Conclusions on science are opinions, and always will be. By the way, nothing about the scientific method involves review by committee. Science is just having a hypothesis, doing tests, and reporting observations. Everything else is overloading the term "science."

rhaksw 4y ago
> No, it really is not. Forgive me, I live in Taiwan and in this region "democracy" can sometimes be colloquially equated with "free speech", perhaps because the two concepts seem distant to some stricter regimes. You're right though, and now I can't edit the comment. If I could, I would rewrite it to say, > Science may not be "democratic", however it does depend on the ability to conduct civil discourse, which depends on free speech and is central to the US implementation of democracy. I agree with what you wrote. I think the rest of my comment illustrates that, but saying "science is inherently democratic" is clearly wrong outside of the colloquial definition I've given here which probably nobody else on this board uses. facepalm