When Did Science Become a Democracy?

Sort of. Science is extremely democratic, but not in the way that you're probably thinking. It's not like it's just up for a vote, and the winner is accepted. It's more like arguments and evidence and debate until effectively the entire scientific community is convinced. This argument goes both ways, though - when one idea wins out and is accepted as the scientific consensus, it has probably changes significantly from when it was originally proposed. When someone argues from a position of complete inflexibility, it's usually a sign that they're a crank.

In other words, science isn't a democracy in that everyone gets to vote on the truth. It's a democracy in that everyone has a voice (provided that that voice is backed up by evidence) in working together to figure out an accurate explanation of the evidence.

I also want to point out that you're kind of comparing apples and oranges with sodium chloride and climate change. When you hear about scientific disagreement, it's usually around topics that are fairly recent. The periodic table has been around for about 150 years, and basic chemistry for longer than that. The fine details of climate change are still being hammered out - and still, something like 99% of climate scientists agree with it, though in the past decade or so, there was still a lot of debate going on. If you went back in time by about a century and a half, you'd probably see the same sort of thing with sodium chloride. Or with gravity. Or with any scientific idea in its formative years.

It's just that the explanation has been validated by so much additional science that it looks like an obvious, irrefutable truth to us now. They weren't just obvious truths in their infancy - they are the result of vigorous debate, collaboration, and relentless testing.

There has always been disagreement and debate in science from the start, that is what makes it science. Until definative experiments and evidence proves otherwise, an idea will always be open for discussion. What science is not is an authoritative dictatorship, despite what Al Gore happens to think.

That is what happens when politics gets into science.

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, Dēmokratia literally "rule of the commoners"), in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament. It is sometimes referred to as "rule of the majority"."

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Science never was a democracy and it never will be. regardless of our differences, the people we elect people to office should at least understand and respect the scientific method.

I got there listening to Randy Newman on YouTube

talking about his POLITICAL SCIENCE. It sounds

like what Mr. Donald Trump would parrot to win the

2016 GOP White House. Let's keep it simple for

Republicans.

So, salt is mixture of Na and Ca is it?

Tell me when you carry out some experiments on salt water - I don't want to be anywhere near!

Sodium (Na) and CHLORINE (Cl).

Deciding what a thing is called CAN be decided by the majority. And even then, it can change over time and over cultures. (Earth's satellite has many official names: Moon, Lune, Luna, 月, Mouna...).

When a population uses a name for an object, it is because (in most cases) a majority of people have agreed over time to use that word to represent that object. It is a kind of implicit vote.

Just go around and decide to use the phrase "Seventh month" (a direct translation of "September") to replace the name of what is, for us, the 9th month, and see how far you get. You will get "voted down" by the general population.

ALL language is the result of a form of democracy. Why should scientific language be different?

-----

The word "planet" comes from the Greek "aster planetes"

aster was the general name for any object "in the heavens" for the Greek philosophers.

As opposed to "meteors" (= object in the high atmosphere) for example.

Some of the "aster" moved in a somewhat predictable way. They were "wandering stars" = aster planetes.

Others were moving upredictably. And they had an odd shape, as it they had a head of hair. They were called aster cometes (stars with hair) by the Greek astronomers. We call them "comets" but there are other cultures that call them "broom stars" (and they outnumber us).

The Sun was a planet.

It is an aster (an object in the heavens) and it moves in a predictable way relative to the fixed stars (planetes).

In the early 1600s, when Galileo found moving stars following Jupiter, he called them "planets". They fit the definition... at that time.

In the late 1600s, after Newton published Principiae..., it was clear that the Sun was an object different from the other wandering stars. It was the centre of the universe (or, at least, of our system).

The major "planets" were in orbit around the Sun and so they remained "planets" (no need to change their category).

The things in orbit around a planet were called "satellites" (from an old Latin word meaning companion or follower). Thus Jupiter's planets became Jupiter's satellites.

The other planet called "Moon" was downgraded to satellite (and it kept its proper name of "Moon" in English).

The biggest demotion was Earth, dropping from centre of the universe to mere planet.

This happened because a majority of astronomers, at the time, agreed to use those words in that fashion. It was a kind of implicit vote. Just as there have been other words that had been proposed to the community of astronomers and they ended up rejecting the offer (or, if you prefer, it did not "catch on"). They were "voted down" even though there was not a formal vote called on a precise date, on that particular topic.

Agreeing on these words is important when trying to describe stuff.

For example, if you are trying to write a theory to explain the formation of "planets", it is relatively easy to do so... as long as you are not forced to cover Pluto (it was formed differently and later than the "real" planets).

Therefore, it is important to ensure that when a word is used, people do understand what is behind that word. And sometimes, it is important to have a discussion (which could lead to a vote) on deciding what is what.

Calcium and sodium are both cations and won't form salts. Salts are ionic compounds formed from related numbers of cations and anions. Cl is the anion in common table salt. You are right that science isn't about consensus. It is trying to determine was is most likely true based on the available evidence. Those who think all the evidence is available are delusional or don't know much.

Since U.S.A. is a democratic Country All fields are automatically in our democracy. Mike

Nobody can make table salt, NaCl from Na and Ca.