[Mind's Eye] Re: Why defend corrupt democracy?

Many good points in this discussion so far. Let me jumping back to the
initial question: "I have never seen science as anything to do with
democracy - democracy is a form of government I despise...".

I think there is a way to find value in democracy, as related to
science. But it's not in its current form, for sure. First, start
with #ornamentalmind's first "conception" of democracy. That is, "the
public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the
management of their own affairs and the means of information are open
and free." This immediately supports #contemplative's view, that
"ignorant" people get to have a say as well. And, of course, it also
describes how our current system is a failure. Why? Because, modern
science is NOT a good example of democratic self-governance. Modern
science is steered by politics through the control of research
funding.

This brings up a point that #comtemplative presented, "I may be
ignorant, but I will not be owned! (at least not on paper)  :-) "
This is a very typical "western" display of independence. It is a
characteristic of the Tea Party, for example. But it has a VERY
serious flaw! It fails to acknowledge the complexity of modern life.
In a scantly populated world of farmers, everyone could pretty much do
what they wanted. But in an overpopulated, resource limited society,
"blind" independence leads directly to anarchy and violence as people
struggle for survival. Recognizing this, "to secure ... Rights,
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from
the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED." So, in order to apply this concept to
science, we need to address each of the related principles. This could
be a fun exercise. But, in short, for this discussion, let me just
list a few changes that I would make.

In the initial question, #archytas states, "The only non-arbitrary way
to defend judgments concerning research agendas in the absence of
absolute standards is through democratic means..." So, why hasn't
society searched for some "absolutes"? And if we don't find those,
then what about some collective preferences?

In fact, society has actually done a lot of this. We do so much
medical research because people have collectively stated they want
that. I'd include things like space, environment and weather research
in such a list. What I think is missing is providing an larger
reaching structure to guide science, and making the "guidance" process
both transparent and inclusive (ignorant people included : - ) ).

BUT! That's the problem we have with our CURRENT form of democracy as
a whole. It's not transparent because it's not being implemented
anywhere near close to its ideals. In Greece, the democracy that
became the initial model only lasted about 30 years, during the rein
of Pericles. Even during that short period, the philosophers realized
the theoretical goals had failed. Instead of a "democracy", meaning
rule by the people, what had actually occurred was an "aristocracy",
meaning rule by a few rich people who were able to sway the votes of
the assembly. When new external stresses arose ( i.e. War ), that
would not permit the time and inefficiency of democracy, the society
reverted to a monarchy. As the environment collapses around us, our
civilization will also face such time pressures. Something will
change, that's for sure.

( Anyone who wants to see a new form of democracy that doesn't have
most of the current problems, check out my website ( A3society.org ).
And no, it's not a direct internet voting scheme, or a
representational scheme like we have, or a mixture of these. A lot of
basics need to change. )