It hardly seems fair in this day and age, here at the beginning of the 21st century, that science should be under the control of the self-proclaimed 'scientists'. Did you or I vote for them? Do they allow us any say in what they call 'scientific fact'? Quite simply, it is now obvious that science is not democratic enough.
In an age where not only politicians can be voted in or out of office, and, in the even far more important, and far more real, world of celebrity reality shows, we - the general public - get to vote out those people we find unacceptable. Why shouldn't we do the same with so-called scientific 'theories'?
For example, if there are people who want astrology to be true - and let's face it, we all need help with sorting out our lives and futures - then let's vote on it, rather than letting unelected 'scientists' decide that astrology is moronic nonsense. It may very well be nonsense to rational people, but why should that matter? If it is what the majority of people want, then that is what people should have.
If people prefer to be cured by alternative medicine, such as faith healers, rather than going through the pain and trouble of invasive 'scientific' medical procedures - then we should vote on that too. Whatever gets the most votes should be what the NHS provides for us. After all, we are constantly told that it is our health service, so it should provide the kind of treatments that we want, not what the self-selected 'doctors' proclaim is best for us.
A more democratic science would also help in the case of the conspiracy against so-called 'maverick' scientists. Just because these visionaries come up with ideas not supported by 'evidence', but just because it seems like a good idea at the time, then mainstream 'science' condemns them out of hand.
Not only that, it seems that scientists are trying to create a sort of cartel, heavily prejudiced against those who come up with novel ideas and products. No sooner has some enterprising individual developed a new product or service, than some loud-mouthed scientist scathingly dismisses the idea, claiming there is no 'evidence' to support its efficacy, blithely ignoring the profits that can be made, and the incredible mark-ups that most of these goods and services are able to get away with. Again, proof that scientists are too busy chasing their own agenda, rather than working for the democratic good of us all.
It is surely time that we took scientists down off their self-erected pedestals and made them realise that their so-called expertise doesn't mean that they know any better than the rest of us. Surely, the whole point of a democracy is that no one person's opinion - no matter how well-informed - is better than anyone else's.