Position:Home>Philosophy> Is science a democracy? In other words, is controversial theory validated by how
Question: Is science a democracy!? In other words, is controversial theory validated by how many scientists vote for it!?
I was rather amused by this quote:
"There is a huge army of scientists who know what they are talking about and are sleeping quite soundly as far as concerns the LHC," said project leader Evans!.
it's from the article about the atomic supercollider:
http://news!.yahoo!.com/s/ap/20080628/ap_o!.!.!.I'm not arguing one way or another, but sometimes it seems to me that a whenever there's a dissension in scientific circle, it is portrayed as wrong, mainly because so few scientists believe in it!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com
In a sense, yes!. Science is a democratic enterprise!. If a large number of scientists say X and a small number say not X, it is more likely that the large number will be right!. This is for the same reason that, like in any other field, when an overwhelming majority of experts have an opinion, that opinion is more likely to be correct than an opposing opinion held by a minority!. It is much more likely that a minority of experts make mistakes than that a majority does!. This of course doesn't always mean that the majority is right; that is obviously not true!.
For nonexperts, we have to rely on the testimony of experts!. Most people reading that article, especially me, would not be able to evaluate the arguments of the two sides and arrive at an educated conclusion!. Unless there are fairly obvious errors being made by one side or the other, we are unable to be good judges!. So we rely on the experts!. When there is disagreement among the experts (as there almost always is) we side with whichever side the majority lies on!. The clearer the majority, the more comfortable we can be!.
The "huge army of scientists" who see nothing worrying about th LHC does count as evidence for us lay people that the LHC is ok!. Of course for the experts in the field, majority should not be the evidence they are using!. They are knowledgeable in the field and should be able to weigh the arguments and evidence for themselves!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Interesting question!.
I'd say it this way!.!.!. BAD science may be a democracy, but good science isn't!. Good science is illustrated by unbiased investigation that allows for independent, reproducible results!. Bad science, on the otherhand, allows for emotion and politics to look for data that are filtered to support a position!. Much of the current debate on global warming is in this category!. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, I think you need to be careful to weigh the motivation of those pushing a position!. Science needs to be a great deal more than "democrat" this or "republican" that!. We need to have a few more leaders stand up and admit that we really, really don't know all the answers, and that it's more important to consult scientists with credibility than ask Leonardo DiCaprio what's the best kind of car to drive!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
In a way, Yes!. But it is an informal democracy!. When someone proposes a new theory, scientists critique it based on the scientists methodology and supporting evidence!. also, they evaluate how well the theory fits the available evidence that has been gathered to date!. New theories are not accepted easily!. There is an inertia to change just like anything else!. Researchers that find the new idea compelling will attempt to validate it with their own tests!. They will then publish or present their data so scientists can compare it to the new theory's work!. This process continues for years until a consensus develops!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Not really!. A controversial theory is validated by the work of other scientists!. If you publish a theory, you must explain the data and experiments that let you develop the theory!. Other scientists examine your data and reproduce and modify your experiments!. Opinions without data and experiments don't hold any water in the scientific community!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
no!.
if science were a democracy it would be full of sh!.i!.t like politicians are!.
science is the discovering and description of reality as closely as mankind can describe!.
new discoveries are often found by just one person, if it were a democracy they would be found by a committee!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
When trains were invented the scientists were certain that passengers would suffocate because of the speed!. There are whole sites devoted to the stupid absurdities of science!.
The earth is warming!. fact!.
Is it because of humans!? Let's vote on it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
science is a proven, unless you are dealing with theory,
it doesn't matter how many believe it if its wright its wright it will eventually be proven
theory is what scientists use until something is provenWww@QuestionHome@Com
Let me ask, Is religion a democracy!? In other words, is a controversial theory validated by how many believers believe in it!?Www@QuestionHome@Com