Sorry baby, science ultimately relies upon the recognition of other scientists. Why? Because professionals working in the discipline need to know how:<quoted text>
So Darwin's theory was not scientific until other scientists recognized it as valid.
When he compiled his data and put it on paper, it was not scientific.
Then, other scientists read it, thought about it, and it became scientific.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you are?
1. methodologies were chosen
2. studies were carried out
3. whether they can be replicated
4. whether appropriate mathematical models were used
5. whether relevant questions were asked
Science is therefore produced by the consensus of scientists. It's not dogma. It's a gated knowledge producing system based on reliability and accuracy (these are technical terms, look them up), and the ability of other scientists to determine those.
You are arguing for anyone to be able to produce science - without the double checking of whether their techniques are actually accurate methodologies to use. Hence you believe in ID. Hence you follow frauds like Cruthers.
You have no way to independently verify whether those people are actually doing good work - work that is as objective as possible, using techniques that remove human observer bias. Hence you believe in all kinds of pseudoscience that is not science because of its injection of subjectivity and observer bias.
So, yes, science is determined by the consensus of scientists. If otherwise, we could not have the rigorous methodologies we have in place. If otherwise, we wouldn't have the powerful, competitive, knowledge producing disciplines that we have.
I described this process to a friend of mine who works in business, and I explained to him how frustrated I was that my work needed to go through lengthy reviews. He said "When I first started in business I would have agreed that the support of your peers was not necessary - but now, having seen all the crazies, with all their non-productive and insane ideas - I recognize the value of professional opinion on whether industry-led projects should have support."
Science is like capitalism. It's competitive - if you have a solid idea, one that's supported by evidence and able to be demonstrated through hypothesis testing, it will be recognized by other professionals.
If you're just a quack, you're going to get warned by your committee. If you ignore those warnings, repeatedly - for it takes a tremendous amount of effort to be dumped at the level of the PhD, with all that investment in you - repeatedly, you're going to get sidelined, maybe booted out. Universities don't want to give up their PhD students. They have invested professional integrity in taking them on, resources in training them that far. They don't do it lightly. Cruthers is quite clearly a quack.
And you believe him. That tells us a lot about how you (mis)judge science.