Yes. The Kansas School Board is deciding how to define science. Let's all vote on scientific results. Shall we include spiritualism as valid science if the people say yes? How about Astrology? Lysenko, anyone?
Face it. The Kansas School Board is an embarrassment, and science by popular vote is not science.
Do you really think we should? Who would do that? Not the states’ boards of education. They don’t vote on research results. They rule on the educational standards for the public schools. The teaching of science is a small part of their total responsibilities. How can you propose solutions for the problem when you won’t even frame its dimensions accurately? Not very scientific. Sounds more like the beginning of a hysterical rant.”
Shall we include spiritualism as valid science if the people say yes? How about Astrology? Lysenko, anyone?”
Yep, just what it is - an hysterical rant. I’m not a member of any board of education, but personally, I don’t think what you suggest is a very good idea. Go ahead and make a proposal to the people, but I think you’ll merely make a big joke out of yourself. It doesn’t even serve very well as a rhetorical point.
”Face it. The Kansas School Board is an embarrassment, and science by popular vote is not science.”
No more an embarrassment than yourself. Their ignorance of the theory of science is considerably less than your apparent ignorance of the theory of representative government. I say ‘apparent’ because, if you know better, and still insist on your idea of a bifurcated construction of government, where you assign responsibility to the people (send them the bill) but insist on retaining authority in your own hands, then your embarrassment is all the worse for it.