alt Hacker News> The whole point of science is that anyone can make an informed critique and self-evaluation of it, with no necessity of depending on a priesthood to interpret it.
That's a misinterpretation:
> anyone can
(Of course nothing stops them, but I don't think that's your point.)
> anyone can make an informed critique and self-evaluation of it, with no necessity of depending on a priesthood to interpret it.
Science is specifically not the wisdom of the crowds - that is pre-scientific. It is the wisdom of emprical facts, which are usually so complex and voluminous that it takes great expertise to understand and interpret them. Science is not democratic - your opinion is worthless and does not deserve consideration unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
You don't have to be in the priesthood, but it's tough to have the expertise otherwise, and then tough to stay outside the priesthood.
"'In matters of science,' Galileo wrote, 'the authority of thousands is not worth the humble reasoning of one single person.'" ("In questioni di scienza L'autorità di mille non vale l'umile ragionare di un singolo." The source was not able to verfy its provenance, however.)
HN is democratic, however.
Your reading of my comment seems perfectly charitable, but it also seems to find more in my comment than what I said.
> > anyone can make an informed critique and self-evaluation of it, with no necessity of depending on a priesthood to interpret it.
> Science is specifically not the wisdom of the crowds - that is pre-scientific. It is the wisdom of emprical facts, which are usually so complex and voluminous that it takes great expertise to understand and interpret them. Science is not democratic - your opinion is worthless and does not deserve consideration unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
I did not say that science is democratic, nor that the validity of a scientific fact is determined by the crowds, but rather that anyone can make an informed critique and self-evaluation. 'Can' is perhaps too strong a word; to do this is a skill that usually requires considerable background and training.
Here I think that one must distinguish between the sociology of science and the ideal of science. In the sociology of science, reputation matters, authority is often deferred to, and an amateur will have a tough time getting a serious hearing. That is the fact of imperfect human practice.
But the ideal of science is that everyone's idea does matter, or, if you like (though I find it pessimistic), that everyone's ideas don't matter. The ideas of the most untrained novice have exactly as much, or as little, scientific weight as those of the most expert, practiced, and credentialed scientist. This is distinct from the sociological weight of an idea: the scientific community is more likely to listen to the expert, practiced, and credentialed scientist than to the novice. But the quality of a scientific idea is intrinsic to the idea, not to who has it.