Furthermore! Science itself cannot be a principle of democratic governance. An "expert" is a person with a narrow field of vision & interests, inferior to the dilettante (i.e. man of culture) in all ways, and cannot be a single-source decisionmaker.

One must not allow one egregiously naive scientism to replace another: while it is important that some experts were censored, what is also just as—if not more important—is that regular people were censored for having discussions about stuff that affected their fucking lives.