What I Think

(sorry all for my bad english)
Since I started to read some forums on controversial issues of science I coud not stop reading and having ideas, so as I'm spending my time with it, I decided to create this blog to practice my ability to write and "leave for posterity".
.
Come to the point. Science dominated the actions of governments in all countries, but there are groups working to concepts outside the natural science standards to be also recognized by governments. Among them we can mention the "alternative medicines" (acupuncture, homeopathy, etc.) or the question of teaching the theory of evolution by religious groups, generating heated controversy. I reflect a little on the subject and decided to write my findings to see if they can help to establish better foundations for dialogue.
.
MY PROPOSAL
.
Science has great power in society. For example, power to guide the content of the education of children and young people, power to establish what is a technical procedure and what is quackery, etc. That power was taken over by the huge credibility of its results and benefits to humanity in the past, present and future.
.
The scientific decisions are set by the scientific institutions (agencies and scientific societies, universities, public agencies, etc), also with it's code ethics refocus the credibility of science (with some drift and bias, but in the end it seems that everything is right). In a democratic society, the power of science can be questioned by all, religious groups, or groups that advocate alternative medicines, etc, may try to influence the science, since science exercises power over them. So, how to establish guidelines for the discussion toward some agreement?
.
A good answer I found is the institutional argument, where the science is viewed as an institution that has the power in society because of its credibility, and has the priority decisions on scientific questions (along with other established institutions like the judiciary, legislative, etc. within the competence of each institution). And to maintain its credibility and therefore its acceptance in a democratic society, the institution of science must accept to discuss with sectors of society not directly related to science, such as religious groups, providing resources and guidelines agreed for the performance of these groups in scientific issues.
.
PRACTICAL EXAMPLE - Evolution x Intelligent Design
.
To those who defend the science standards (which include me), I think we must keep in mind arguments who takes into account the democratization of scientific debate, where what is established is the will of the majority, but within the institutional avenues for discussion. The science got it's power dueto it's great credibility with the majority, so it should soon have the means to the majority to question it, including groups outside the scientific community. So I think the defense of science "standard" should be focused on the institutional activity of science.
.
I explain it all. For example, in the controverse request of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in science classes, it is clear that the DI is not accepted as a scientific theory by scientific institutions (in the sense of being an established scientific model, it's only a hypothesis). Once the DI should not be taught in science classes (perhaps only as a quote from the debates of not established cientific theories in the society, as is was with lamarckism). So we have made clear that the science as an institution does not consider the DI as scientific.
.
The reasons for the hypothesis that DI is not comparable to the Theory of Evolution (TE) is that the TE has a broad deployment and activities for practical and theoretical biology, such as study of the mutability of pathogenic microorganisms. But DI (as far I know) is only a hypothesis without "strong" basis, generating no scientific activity or practice developments. That is, the TE is a useful model for scientific institution generating benefits for humanity, whihe DI has nothing like this (so the DI is a hypothesis and not a model that runs a range of explanations of phenomena in nature). That is, we showed the arguments of why DI is not accepted by the science as an institution (see that I do not look into the details of the evidences evolution or DI).
.
But we must always be open to questions, not only because it is part of the scientific method, but mainly because the institution of science can only exercise his power in a democratic society if it allows the non-scientific sectors of society also question it. So I think the institution of science should clear the mechanisms by which non-scientific sectors can question the science, as I say below.
.
For those who questions the science standard, I think that to modify a scientific model or to include a new one, you has to pass the "institutional track" above. That is, in the example case of DI, try to develop the DI hypothesis to see if it can be accepted by a representative number of scientists.
.
If the proponents of ID can not arrive be accepted by the scientific community (ie the science as an institution) and still want the DI as an alternative theory of the TE to be taught in sciences classroom, I think you would have to work to develop an "other science, "which produce practical results and benefits to humanity, where the DI gain credibility with society, and if the credibility and the benefits are similar to the "standard science" perhaps you have some credibility to try to dispute the power of science in basic education. Sounds utopian, perhaps (I do not even believe in DI), but see that homeopathy and acupuncture are not accepted by the scientific community, but are working (in one form or another) to try to be accepted.
.
It is almost like this. Comments are welcome.
Gilberto de Paiva