http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kuhn-function-dogma.pdf http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PDF/Dogmatism%20in%20Science.PDF Two good reads on the subject that say much on the nature of science and the fallacies of humans that make true science a far away ideal.
Why not aggregate these two papers into one thread. That's what this forum is for. Then we could possibly discuss the topic.
Probably don't actually want that.. forum.grasscity.com/science-nature/1283410-dogma-science-hidden-agenda-suppressed-evidence-mans-history.html If that isn't enough to turn you away from discussing the "dogma" of science with PP, just do a search for 'dogma' and posts made by pickledpie and you'll see many more ridiculous posts like this. I've seen him blame the dogma of science and then followup with his own religious dogma in the exact same sentence before..
Yeah how is science dogmatic? The whole point of the scientific method is that it's specifically designed to weed out things like that. I can see how some scientists could fall into dogmatic patterns of thinking, getting too personally invested in an idea/theory or whatnot, but that's a human failing, not one of science itself.
I don't think that 'dogma' is the correct term for what they discuss in these papers. Sure, there exists bias in scientific research due to whatever scientific belief is most dominant at a given time. This isn't dogmatic though. They aren't following any principles laid down by any authority figure. They are just doing what seems to make most sense at the time. Science has always operated like this. This doesn't therefore mean that "true science is a far away ideal." And it definitely doesn't mean we need to adopt some other way of understanding the world around us. Science and philosophy are the best tools we have for understanding the universe.
I somewhat agree with you here. As OP mentioned, science is an ideal, one worth striving for, but the human element assures we will always fall short of that ideal. There are certainly auhorities in science however, they are the names of scientists most people are familiar with. Hawkings, Einstein, Newton, Maxwell, etc. If you go against them you are automatically met with strong resistance and even ostricization. The ones that jump out at me are Hans Alfven and Tom Van Flandern.
The idea isn't that science itself is dogmatic, such a notion simply doesn't make sense. The idea is that the world is generally unaware of how powerful the human factor in science really is. The idea of there being a dogma only exists when you perceive science as an entity as opposed to a process or lens in which we appraise the function of reality and the natural world. As long as there is any ego involved in the pursuit of science or knowledge in general, we must consciously recognize it. In it's recognition we keep a mind open and free from any attachment to a formalized "this is how it is" ideology. We must take into account that words are words, and that means we have to understand what words are. Beyond anything, they are descriptions of a reality that they can't explicitly describe. We make up very pervasive ideas and concepts such as "physical", "time" and "humans", yet these ideas are in the distinct frame of reference of the subjective human perspective. A relative and hard to solidify abstraction that finds it's root directly in our experience. The true arising of dogma often revolves around an immovable adherence to a particular approach to any concept. It is not only an adherence to the way we see the concepts that most veritably express reality, but the adherence to a belief about another concept that is being introduced and is seemingly contrary to reality. It is on the basis of misunderstanding that all problems arise, but when there occurs a polarization between concepts, between right and wrong, I believe that science is muddied and clouded. Science isn't meant to be a belief, but it is meant to inform us better as to the function of reality. Science is non-conceptual, as soon as concepts are associated with it, it is no longer science, it is philosophy. It is a coming to a conclusion based on evidence. True science doesn't come to a conclusion, and if in a sense it does, it sure as hell doesn't build a fort around it and defend it with an army. It is when emotions and ego, and the entire human factor gets mixed into things that a dogma might emerge. It is only natural that it does. It happens in all spheres of human works, ideologies emerge like creatures, they evolve and interact with each other, they are subsist on some things and are destroyed by others. A truly harmonious system would be one in which equilibrium is not with great highs and great lows, but is steady and calm. In which there are no entities, only an organic shifting. One that can only arise with a healthy dose of detachment. So to conclude. I haven't anything specific to say about science itself, but something that is far more encompassing. It is to do more with human nature and what naturally occurs as a result of the way things are done now. There are solutions, but only if we become absolutely aware and conscious of the reality of things. That itself is a science beyond chemistry, physics and biology and one we would benefit greatly from if we were to become attuned to it.
I named the thread that because that was what the video was called. As for followups of my own "religious dogma", It isn't one. It doesn't have anything to say about any other beliefs and it's my own insights picked up from any number of places, all obviously personal, but what is it? Do you know? Nope. You can't know it. You've seen it through your own mind and there's a lot of filters in place that really blur the image beyond recognition. What you denounce, isn't even mine. In fact, you do that a lot, in different ways of course.
You bring up a good point about science and conclusions. It reminded me of something Michael Shermer once said, that science is provisionally true, not True with a capitol T.
Indeed. An idea that, if promulgated in the scientific world, would be very powerful in the most beneficial sense.
Ah, I guess I hadn't though about this deeply enough. Dogma can definitely arise when you think of people at social/emotional level and with the authority types in science that NorseMythology has mentioned. Darwin and Newton come to mind. Any scientist who disagrees with their work is automatically thought to be nuts by the rest of the scientific community. I like that quote. Scientific understanding of the world is ever changing. What we believe is 'true' today, might not be true in a hundred years time. It might be more right to say things are true *for now*.
That's the thing though, scientists already do this. Read pretty much any scientific paper and notice how scientists will never say things in 100 percent certainty, at least good ones. They will often say things along the lines of based off the data presented in this paper, it seems that x leads to an increase in cancer or whatever that person is studying. Dogma seems to really just be another word for confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is something that all people suffer from. Scientific method has no bias. However people use the scientific method and have an inherent bias, which is why you see the scientific method corrupted. One of the biggest issues I think in science is people's inability to understand that theories are just models. They are not perfect explanations of the world. They are just our best working explanations of the world which are best able to help us predict and understand the universe. Models in science are often taught to students as almost full proof laws of the universe. When in reality they are often far from it. As a result, kids never truly understand the concepts the model is trying to explain and just blindly memorize the model. This is something I have especially noticed when debating people on the topic of evolution. They talk about abiogenesis and say that disproves all of evolution. What they don't realize is that there is observable evolution which can't be argued and has been observed for a very long time. We know it happens and we haven't a decent idea of the mechanism for how change occurs. The parts that aren't quite as well studied are often criticized and people throw out the whole theory of evolution which is just retarded. They don't realize that evolution is our best model to explain the world even if it isn't perfect. That's why you will often see the current model being "salvaged" when running into issues. Eventually though if there is enough evidence to contradict a model then scientists will try to find a new better model.
I like how easy the search function is.. But I had it wrong, you started off with your own dogma and then followed it up trying to pass the dogma buck to "materialistic" science. There is NO scientific evidence to suggest your belief, all you have to go off of is dogma handed down to you by others telling you what to believe.. which circles back to my point I made in another thread, those who run around a cry "dogma in science" are ruled by religious/spiritual dogma and project themselves onto others. You people don't understand.. if you have a theory or idea, science WILL take a look at it. You want to try to scientifically prove God? Start a GoFundMe or search for funding and if you put enough effort and raise enough resources to put your theory to the test.. science will put it through the scientific method. You want to scientifically prove your ridiculous religious, dogmatic belief that the universe is conscious? Take an active part in science and do it yourself.. but in order to actually be scientific about it, you have to present your findings and how you found them so other people can try to confirm what you found. If others can't duplicate your findings on a constant basis, then it's more than likely because you were wrong. If you were wrong, you can always try to go at it again and again.. but there comes a certain point that when something fails to provide scientific evidence on a constant basis, it's probably because it's not true. Again, stop blaming science for your shortcomings..
I'm not sure why you insist on me having some sort of dogma of my own when you're entirely incapable of saying what it is. I don't have any beliefs that science can touch. They simply don't conflict and they can't, because science's domain only reaches so far and my beliefs transcend singular conceptual frameworks. My beliefs are anti-dogma themselves, in fact they are anti-belief as that implies a conceptual model with which to view the universe. I recognise the nature of all models as being insufficient in expressing the truth of reality. Materialism is a model that simply doesn't hold up outside the context of human experience which is what defines the idea. What is material? Energy manifests to us in a way which we have described as physical. We have a marked experience of a field that moulds itself in various ways to produce the various qualities of the "physical" world. What is it at it's core? A singular substance manifest as countless qualities that essentially have no quality of their own. What was the nature of the universe before the big bang? There are theories and I have my own and I would say the fool would say they are less valid than any other. I can only act in congruence with science and through the action of my own reason I have contemplated the knowledge that we have gathered in science and all other fields. It is exactly what I encourage others to do. You yourself have beliefs that go beyond what science says and you can't seem to comprehend that. Beliefs, like yours as well as any others, exist after the point where science drops off. Your inability to understand these things unknowingly keeps you bound in your own biases. Why is it so hard to understand?
You know i am with you on the Big Bang Model being wholly insufficient, it seems hypocritical to say pickle rejects science in favor of his beliefs when you do the same. Your worldview necessitates that the universe had no beginning, its not a scientific observation. When i say there is dogma in science it has nothing to do with any belief. No belief i hold requires preconceived notions of the nature of reality. I say there is dogma because i am a big fan of physics/cosmology/astronomy, i recognize the stagnation and misdirection of the current models. How often do we see proper science utilized? I want to see them making bold predictions and actually putting the models at risk. When they do make predictions that falsify their model they invent new invisible entities to save it from the wrath of the scientific method. Then they piss away countless time and resources looking for fairydust instead of building a sufficient new model.
Maybe one day, science will cure blindness.. hopefully. I reject science all the time.. because there is no dogma in it one can do that. I try to keep up with science news, ScienceDaily is a good site.. but half the time I see an article and I can see it is flawed and/or complete rubbish. That's the point of science, to present it so that others can review, deconstruct, and reconstruct until we reach the facts. What is a observation is that there has never been a scientific observation of the beginning.. so there is no point to assume there was one. It is another observation that there has never been a scientific observation of the end of the universe or a boundary.. so why assume there is? When scientific evidence is presented, I will take it into consideration and adjust what I believe. Without assumption that there was/is, I'm left with the option that there wasn't/isn't. Just like how when one doesn't believe in any religious, metaphysical, supernatural, or immaterial belief systems, all they are left with is what is. When evidence is presented for any of that, then the evidence can be factored in. It's just those kind theories have a habit of never producing evidence, so those who hold onto the theories cry dogma. As for the "dogma" of the big bang.. there isn't any. It is currently the theory with the most amount of scientific evidence.. and even though I don't buy into it, I can't deny it. I think it is funny though, the big bang theory hasn't even been around for 100 years. Aristotle's bird blunder lasted for thousands of years. There are many scientific blunders that lasted longer than the big bang, if it is one. That is how science works, that is how you learn.. by learning what you are wrong about. Be patient with the trial and error process of scientific learning.. or take an active part in it. Sitting on your ass and blaming the dogma that isn't there isn't going to progress a damn thing.