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. )
