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?

then people has done such a bad educational work

and maybe the judges, the minority, are judging in a bad way and are pseudoscientific thinking that they're scientists

they already were educated

and thinking that only a minority has scientifical reason in this is an imposition

I never said, only the minority have scientific reason, I said that the best minds should have authority.

You are assuming an unprecedented scenario, where every person is a genius of equal intellect.

Let's say that people can do basic math

if it's too advanced, the best minds could explain it to the people

in a way they can decide

politics has values

Assuming this were possible, why bother if the outcome will be the same because there is only 1 correct answer, objectively.

Sure, educate people to the best of our ability, but do not, yet, rely on them to make the correct decision.

because if for some reason the delegate isn't doing what we agreed, we can overthrow that person violently or legally

it avoids "revisionism"

otherwise the delegates have a spirit for themselves

Why not just point to the incorrect teaching?

yes, but who will point it out and who will listen?