So if we both read the same book, we understand it with equal depth and insight?

Unless we are clones raised in mirror worlds, this is never true.

public education can make tests and there could be assemblies with consensus about it; but about interpretations, there could be factions

and I think that giving a minority the authority because other minority think that they're best is the wrong way

wouldn't it be easier to have an authority

it's an imposition

How many different interpretations of '2 + 2 = 4' are there?

what if

teachers had like democratic elections

so if they don't work they can't preach to their tenure

in the decimal system this is true

and it should be taught as science

although not in a binary one

Consensus is a logical fallacy, appeal to popularity.

It is only sigificant if based in science.

anarchists unions try to discuss in assemblies and get into a consensus, convince who doesn't agree with them

What a waste of time.

this could take more time yes

but after it we don't have to do again the law

change the government, etc.

because we already agreed and learned from it

in other cases, there could be supermajorities

Assuming you made the correct discussion, which you cannot know because you care more about consensus than authoritative truths.

and in irreconciliable cases factions

no

scientifical truths doesn't depend on democracy

this is built on the platform in a pre-revolutionary phase

but after it, what people don't know if it's truth or not; what we have to agree

What kind of truth is not scientific?

this is other thing

in politics?

it depends a lot on the environment and the circumstances

we don't have laboratory conditions

I should rephrase, what kind of decision making should not be guided by science?

there could be some zones in the territory that would prefer to pay for having this thing or another one

for example

I agree it should be guided by science when possible

So you are saying, if we are 100% ignorant, which is not the case, but if we were, we should use consensus, but then once we have science why not abandon consensus in favour of science?

I agree when it's 1+1=2

What if others do not agree?

What if they are the majority?