You aren't seriously suggesting that science is democratic process, are you?
In a sense, that is rather what many in Science would recommend; but to their way of thinking, the only ones that get to vote are the ones that think a certain way. Thus our entreatment to what "the majority of scientists" think on a regular basis. Pretty convincing when that majority got there by agreeing to think the way they do and knowing that if they didn't, they'd never amount to anything - kindof an intellectual bribery that allows one to stuff the ballot box in advance. Welcome to the intellectual version of communism. If you don't vote for the party candidate, you'll be sent to an assylum. And thanks for voting..
I'm suggesting that science doesn't belong to a select few people pretending to be something because they have a degree and an opinion. The world was full of degree holding opinion makers over the matter of flight; but, it was a pair of bicycle makers that proved the concept. Bicycle makers.
I'm sure that wrinkled a lot of noses behind the doors of "polite" society.
Science doesn't belong to biased ideologues either. It belongs to the World. Status, however, has been used to abuse the world with one ideological bias after another.
Science is not supposed to be about ideology. It is supposed to be about what we can KNOW as differentiated from "interesting sounding fictions". Instead it has become about what men wish to postulate as interesting sounding fictions. Tribal lore, a scientist would have it, has been replaced with tribal lore - only smarter people are the ones
imposing the lore. That isn't science. If you want to sell fiction; but, down your credentials and go compete with Stephen King. If you want to sell science, put down the fictions and start reporting what can be KNOWN. The learn the phrase "I Don't KNOW". Conjecture may be useful in problem solving; but offering it as fact is the height of dishonesty.