Should we subject Science to popular opinion polls,does Science need you to agree with it for it to be factual?

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. An older meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained.



Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In early modern times the two words, "science" and "philosophy", were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language. By the 17th century, "natural philosophy" (which is today called "natural science") could be considered separately from "philosophy" in general. However, "science" continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science.



Science is "[i]n modern use, often treated as synonymous with 鈥榥atural and physical science鈥? and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use." This narrower sense of "science" developed as a part of science became a distinct enterprise of defining "laws of nature", based on early examples such as Kepler's laws, Galileo's laws, and Newton's laws of motion. In this period it became more common to refer to natural philosophy as "natural science". Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the disciplined study of the natural world including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. This sometimes left the study of human thought and society in a linguistic limbo, which was resolved by classifying these areas of academic study as social science. Similarly, several other major areas of disciplined study and knowledge exist today under the general rubric of "science", such as formal science and applied science.Should we subject Science to popular opinion polls,does Science need you to agree with it for it to be factual?
No we shouldnt



But we should look to the person who created the Hypothesis and look at studies and result





If scientist A works for the oil company liberals immediately discount their work



But if scientist b gets grants from green energy companies or liberal organizations the work is golden and proves beyond a reasonable doubt what they wanted to see proved



No popular vote on science



But we should subject science to a NON BIASED peer review
That is true, I can see that. The facts established by science (if they are reproduced over and over) then they are unbiased. They're just facts. Rather than analyze the scientists and facts, we should challenge other scientists to test it and continuously test it, so we can get a confirmed proof multiple times.Should we subject Science to popular opinion polls,does Science need you to agree with it for it to be factual?
No but Science should be based on verifiable facts that are shared for other to check and on experiments that can be recreated and not on a political agenda!Should we subject Science to popular opinion polls,does Science need you to agree with it for it to be factual?
Should the Bible or the Koran be subjected to a vote?