"And does it suggest to the world that science is a democracy, and that specific scientific claims can be overturned by referendum?"
Isn't that how it always works? The change from a ptolemaic (sp?) universe to a copernican, from newtonian mechanics to relativity theory, and then the advent of quantum mechanics, and eventually, one supposes, something else. Science is a democracy...members of the community always have to persuade other members of the community to accept their views.
Fair point. But it's not the validity of the scientific claim that's decided by referendum. That is, a good scientist doesn't believe some new claim because it's backed by most other scientists. She might take it more seriously or dismiss it less readily but in the end the vote isn't (or shouldn't be) what convinces her.
I think you're right in that does seem to be the way it all eventually plays out. The only question , or variable, then is the time factor, i.e. the time it takes for evidence to triumph over referendum. Copernican theory, evolution, and relativity are again good examples where anywhere from centuries to decades were required before they became majority opinions.
"objective science," or science that is undeniably true, is very rare, leaving us only with two sides who argue their cases...the real importance of consensus in the situation seems to be judicial; the question is of which view gets legal support. In this instance, AAI is very powerful. For a pop example, the Scopes trial. WJ Bryan and his supporters loudly lambasted evolution, having never studied it or so much as read Darwin. This I still see today. I remember seeing some hell-fire confrontational preacher standing on a bench yelling out against evolution, proclaiming how easy it was to understand, and he could argue it false...as long as our legislators are no more intelligent than this, AAI will continue to work. So, while a consensus of scientists does not make a theory true, it does tend to encode the theory in legalisms.
Ugh, I want smarter legislators! Or at least legislators who are bothered by their ignorance of things relevant to the gigantic decisions we entrust them with. Or people in general to stop thinking of what they believe to be true simply as elements of their ideologies -- to be chosen and displayed like a Jesus fish.
Anyway, good point.