Science is not a democracy
And, at a fundamental level, it can never be one.
“Even when Darwin’s teaching first made its appearance, it became clear at once that its scientific, materialist core, its teaching concerning the evolution of living nature, was antagonistic to the idealism that reigned in biology.”
-Trofim Lysenko
When it comes to a wide variety of issues — the safety of GMOs, the efficacy of vaccines, the veracity of human-caused climate change, air and water pollution, or nuclear power — many of us have opinions that are based on fear or ideology, rather than on what the science says. In many cases, we even vote (or ask our representatives to vote) on not just policy but on the science of these issues, such as the senate did on the issue of climate change in 2015. This strikes me as the epitome of silliness, not merely because the idea of voting on science is completely antithetical to the entire enterprise of science itself, but because debate in science isn’t about achieving consensus, but rather is about raising the issues that need to be clarified to determine the answer. And once those issues are clarified, the conclusion is no longer a matter of opinion, but becomes scientifically robust and validated. Nearly 100 years ago, astronomy was facing a tremendous internal controversy, just as many fields of science do throughout history.
