Starboy

Hi Keith,

Please do not be offended by this, but I am only stating my opinion in this matter and I am not trying to offend anyone. As Mark Twain once said �It is a difference of opinion that makes a horse race.� So with that in mind I am out of the gate.

I see a greater difference between philosophy and science than I do between science and science dogma. Indeed it is because there is science dogma that the differences exist. As far as I can see, philosophy is extremely efficient at speculation. A great deal of philosophy can be done with the smallest amount of fact.

As far I can tell philosophy only has the authority of logic. Don�t get me wrong, logic is a fine thing, and more people should get some, however the problem with logic is that all it can do is make arguments based on assertions. This places a great burden on the assertions. Now if there were some impartial third party that could be used to decide on all controversial matters in philosophy, then it might get somewhere, but unfortunately logic is all there is. So philosophers have nothing with which to make a philosophical reality check. They have no impartial objective authority, the same goes for religion, so for both of them anything goes, and it usually does. As such I see it as a way of generating a great deal of heat but very little light.

Starboy

Keith Russell

Starboy:

I disagree with you completely vis a vis philosophy, logic, and science.

I don't believe that there is a valid place for dogma in any of the above.

I don't believe that axioms--whether scientific, logical, or philosphical--are in any way 'dogmatic'.

Keith.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Calvan

With respect Starboy,

[quote] Originally posted by Starboy
Hi Keith,
Please do not be offended by this, but I am only stating my opinion in this matter and I am not trying to offend anyone. As Mark Twain once said �It is a difference of opinion that makes a horse race.� So with that in mind I am out of the gate.

May I say, Starboy, that stating one�s opinion concerning a philosophical issue of a scientific issue should never be cause for offence. I assume the essence of inquiry welcomes diverse opinions and ideas. I cannot comprehend intolerance of divergent thinking except where dogma is playing a significant role in the process of ones inquiry.


The focus of Keith�s question centers on the differences between axioms and dogma, as opposed to the differences between science and philosophy. Indeed, there are differences between the latter as you point out. But that is not relevant, as near as I can determine, to the question.

Starboy, I have a question about your statement �Indeed it is because there is science dogma that the differences exist.� Is that statement an assumption,a scientific axiom, or dogma?

Calvan

Keith Russell

Calvan:

I think it is relevant, since what Starboy calls 'scientific dogma' (reality being the final authority), I call a self-verifying scientific axiom.

No, axioms (like dogma) cannot be proven, they are the basis of proof.

But, unlike dogmatic assertions, axioms can be validated, verified.

Keith.

Calvan

Keith,

Originally posted by Keith:
Thank you Keith. I admire the concise clarity of your thinking.
Calvan

Starboy

Keith,

I think I understand your distinction. If there is evidence that is works it is an axiom, but if there is not it is dogma. Using your definition, science started out as dogma but has graduated to an axiom due to the evidence of its success.

Do you insist that what you call an axiom must be followed in order to claim what you are doing is science? If you did not follow it, then would what you did automatically be disqualified as science? If that is so, then wouldn't it be more than an axiom? Or would you allow people to skip the authority of nature part but still call it science?

I may seem to be going overboard, but I have a point to all this. There are a great deal of Christians out there that seem to think that skipping the authority of nature part is fine as long as they resort to the authority of god. There is no way to argue with them because as far as they are concerned what is important is not how well creationism work in reality but how well it works with the bible. Not insisting that authority of nature is scientific dogma is exactly what is allowing them to get away with talking school boards into allowing creationism into biology classes. It happens because it is not clearly understood by people that authority to nature IS how science it done, no ifs, no buts, no maybes, in a word science dogma.

Starboy

Starboy

Keith,

I would also like to add that if there is a comparison between science dogma and religious dogma, you could separate them by looking for the dogma that actually works. This is also corroborating evidence that nature exists and god does not. You see, religious dogma has a bad name precisely because it doesn�t work.

Starboy

Calvan

If the following are valid assumptions

Religious doctrine + prejudice = dogma

Scientific axiom � prejudice = scientific axioms

Scientific axiom + prejudice = scientific dogma

Then I am unable to understand why anyone would want to prejudice scientific axioms by treating them as dogma.
Calvan

Keith Russell

Calvin, thanks. Well said.

Keith.

Starboy

Calvan,

That is my point. Scientists are prejudiced. When something happens in nature they are prejudiced to think that it has a natural explanation. That is indeed what they look for. The religious are also prejudiced. When something happens that they cannot explain they are prejudiced to think that god was involved. If the bible has any historical validity at all, this explains the accounts of the NT. It is an ancient example of the religious invoking god to explain something they do not understand. The unfortunate thing is that the religious of today are doing the exact same thing. This makes them reality challenged. I don�t blame the religious. They can�t help it, being religious means that you are supposed to accept supernatural explanations for natural events. It seems to me that people think that the prejudice of the religious is silly because it doesn�t appear to work, but because the prejudice of the scientist works then it is not really prejudice. If you do science and you come up with a blank that is where the prejudice kicks in. It is at this time that the very prejudice you speak of makes the scientist look for the natural explanation. That is when new science is discovered.

I think the issue is that you think as a philosopher and not as a scientist, you are not prejudiced to explain natural events in natural terms. As such I consider philosophers to be as reality challenged as the religious. The unfortunate thing about philosophers is that they have no prejudices at all with which to interpret natural events, so they end up with this endless spiral of questions about existence, reality, perception and so forth. No insult intended. I admit that to some it may seem a derogatory term, but IMO that is what it is, stated in plain terms.

Starboy