Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith Russell · 10-07-2002, 08:36 AM

Starboy:

If one truly continues refining one's beliefs, continually questioning what one believes to be 'true', I think dogma will acquire a bad name quite on its own.

Keith.

Starboy · 10-07-2002, 08:57 AM

You mean religious dogma don't you? I assume we both agree that requiring nature to be the final authority in all matters scientific is science dogma and such is good dogma?

galiel · 10-07-2002, 11:47 AM

Calvan, with respect, you are addressing a completely incorrect perception about what "science" is with all of your comments. You are either ignorant of what science really is and unfamiliar with the methodology, outlook and attitudes of real scientists, or you are dogmatically and irrationally anti-science. I hope it is the former and not the latter.

The conclusion that the scientific method works is not dogmatic. It is entirely empirical. The reliance on scientific methods did not emerge as a sudden dogma; it has evolved over time as the result of empricial evidence of its efficacy. It works more effectively than any other system of acquiring knowledge. Unlike paranormal phenomena, such as religious claims, it works for everyone, not only select practitioners, it works consistently, not only some of the time, it works everywhere, not only in certain places. Most importantly, it is "open source"; it relies, not on the filtering of a self-appointed priesthood of revealed knowledge, but on the direct sharing of information and the accessibility of said information to everyone, scientist or not.

By the way, the "scientific method" is simply an extension of a tool you use every day: common sense. Assuming that the Sun will shine tomorrow is not a matter of dogma or blind faith; it is the empirical conclusion from the many mornings you woke up and saw it shine; assuming that your crops will die if you don't water them is not dogma, it is the result of empirical evidence.

All the scientific method does is sharpen, systematize and verify assumptions so that we can, in fact, isolate true causes from percieved causes and extract principles that will work for everyone, everywhere. Thus, the use of technology to discover underground water reserves has proven more consistently and universally effective than dousing. That is not dogma, it is simple common sense.

I recommend that you spend some of your retirement time learning about the excitement, wonder and exhiliration of scientific research. You may be surprised that scientists are not at all as you have been lead to believe by second-hand dogma.

Starboy · 10-07-2002, 12:05 PM

At the risk of putting words into the mouth of Calvan, he does not advocate science as dogma. It was I that was pointing out to him that the requirement of insisting that nature is the final authority on all things scientific is a kind of dogma. This claim is based on the definition of dogma. IMO, insisting this is dogmatic is necessary, especially in the light of such Christian theories as creationism and ID. It is because Christians wish to allow the authority of god to replace the authority of nature that the dogmatic reliance of science on nature must be asserted. Calvan was taken back by this because he didn't see the need to accept any dogma as it relates to the activities of science.

Calvan, forgive me if I got your position wrong.

Starboy

Keith Russell · 10-07-2002, 12:11 PM

Starboy:

Re-read how I defined dogma, and I think you'll see that I don't view the scientific method as 'dogma'.

Scientists constantly test the method, and it is continually verified.

I don't consider it 'unquestioning', and therefore, I don't consider it 'dogma'.

Keith.

Starboy · 10-07-2002, 12:19 PM

Keith,

I agree. Again, it depends on how you define it:

Main Entry: dog�ma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'd�g-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog�ma�ta /-m&-t&/
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at DECENT
Date: 1638
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

I would say it qualifies under 1a. What do you think?

Starboy

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Calvan · 10-07-2002, 07:39 PM

Greetings galiel

Quote:

Originally posted by GALIEL: The conclusion that the scientific method works is not dogmatic. It is entirely empirical. The reliance on scientific methods did not emerge as a sudden dogma; it has evolved over time as the result of empricial evidence of its efficacy. It works more effectively than any other system of acquiring knowledge. Unlike paranormal phenomena, such as religious claims, it works for everyone, not only select practitioners, it works consistently, not only some of the time, it works everywhere, not only in certain places. Most importantly, it is "open source"; it relies, not on the filtering of a self-appointed priesthood of revealed knowledge, but on the direct sharing of information and the accessibility of said information to everyone, scientist or not.
By the way, the "scientific method" is simply an extension of a tool you use every day: common sense. Assuming that the Sun will shine tomorrow is not a matter of dogma or blind faith; it is the empirical conclusion from the many mornings you woke up and saw it shine; assuming that your crops will die if you don't water them is not dogma, it is the result of empirical evidence.
All the scientific method does is sharpen, systematize and verify assumptions so that we can, in fact, isolate true causes from percieved causes and extract principles that will work for everyone, everywhere. Thus, the use of technology to discover underground water reserves has proven more consistently and universally effective than dousing. That is not dogma, it is simple common sense.

Most eloquently spoken galiel.

Calvan

Calvan · 10-07-2002, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy. At the risk of putting words into the mouth of Calvan, he does not advocate science as dogma.

Thank you Starboy, a classy move on your part!

Calvan

Calvan · 10-07-2002, 08:24 PM

Greetings ALL:
I would like to suggest another aspect of dogma. I am suggesting that dogma as it is transformed into dogmatic behavior is the source of intolerance and discourtesy.
If the above assumptions were correct, then this would be a very good reason why any scientific principle does not need to be treated as dogma.
Why not?
Because the scientist does not have to protest and seek to legitimize what they are saying by repetition or dogma because nature does that for them.
The only reason that dogma is dogma is because those who use it do so in order to reinforce falsehood into becoming truth by the process of repetition. If something is said enough times, those that are willing or conditioned to become indoctrinated will come to believe it as true.
I further suggest that if one has to employ dogma and hence dogmatic behavior, then one of the tools of that method of seeking to control others be by coercion of one form or another.
Hence the employment of discourtesy as a form of coercion.
My perspective is that science and the principles that are discovered through science are not and need not be thought of as being threatened by any argument that is based upon the beliefs generated by religions. The realities of science will outlive any human beings.
(I suspect anyone in this forum who reads this will rise up in protest at this statement based upon my observation of the attitudes I have observed in this forum toward religious proselytizing.)
The threat is from those who believe in dogmatic doctrine and/or allow themselves to become intimidated by such input.
(I think I need to give the above assumptions further thought.)

Calvan

Keith Russell · 10-08-2002, 07:47 AM

Starboy:

It works for me, but let me ask you this:

Do you see any difference between philosphical/scientific axioms, and 'dogma'?

Keith.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-07-2002, 08:36 AM	#61
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Starboy: If one truly continues refining one's beliefs, continually questioning what one believes to be 'true', I think dogma will acquire a bad name quite on its own. Keith.

10-07-2002, 08:57 AM	#62
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	You mean religious dogma don't you? I assume we both agree that requiring nature to be the final authority in all matters scientific is science dogma and such is good dogma?

10-07-2002, 11:47 AM	#63
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	Calvan, with respect, you are addressing a completely incorrect perception about what "science" is with all of your comments. You are either ignorant of what science really is and unfamiliar with the methodology, outlook and attitudes of real scientists, or you are dogmatically and irrationally anti-science. I hope it is the former and not the latter. The conclusion that the scientific method works is not dogmatic. It is entirely empirical. The reliance on scientific methods did not emerge as a sudden dogma; it has evolved over time as the result of empricial evidence of its efficacy. It works more effectively than any other system of acquiring knowledge. Unlike paranormal phenomena, such as religious claims, it works for everyone, not only select practitioners, it works consistently, not only some of the time, it works everywhere, not only in certain places. Most importantly, it is "open source"; it relies, not on the filtering of a self-appointed priesthood of revealed knowledge, but on the direct sharing of information and the accessibility of said information to everyone, scientist or not. By the way, the "scientific method" is simply an extension of a tool you use every day: common sense. Assuming that the Sun will shine tomorrow is not a matter of dogma or blind faith; it is the empirical conclusion from the many mornings you woke up and saw it shine; assuming that your crops will die if you don't water them is not dogma, it is the result of empirical evidence. All the scientific method does is sharpen, systematize and verify assumptions so that we can, in fact, isolate true causes from percieved causes and extract principles that will work for everyone, everywhere. Thus, the use of technology to discover underground water reserves has proven more consistently and universally effective than dousing. That is not dogma, it is simple common sense. I recommend that you spend some of your retirement time learning about the excitement, wonder and exhiliration of scientific research. You may be surprised that scientists are not at all as you have been lead to believe by second-hand dogma.

10-07-2002, 12:05 PM	#64
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	At the risk of putting words into the mouth of Calvan, he does not advocate science as dogma. It was I that was pointing out to him that the requirement of insisting that nature is the final authority on all things scientific is a kind of dogma. This claim is based on the definition of dogma. IMO, insisting this is dogmatic is necessary, especially in the light of such Christian theories as creationism and ID. It is because Christians wish to allow the authority of god to replace the authority of nature that the dogmatic reliance of science on nature must be asserted. Calvan was taken back by this because he didn't see the need to accept any dogma as it relates to the activities of science. Calvan, forgive me if I got your position wrong. Starboy

10-07-2002, 12:11 PM	#65
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Starboy: Re-read how I defined dogma, and I think you'll see that I don't view the scientific method as 'dogma'. Scientists constantly test the method, and it is continually verified. I don't consider it 'unquestioning', and therefore, I don't consider it 'dogma'. Keith.

10-07-2002, 12:19 PM	#66
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Keith, I agree. Again, it depends on how you define it: Main Entry: dog�ma Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'd�g- Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog�ma�ta /-m&-t&/ Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at DECENT Date: 1638 1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds 2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church I would say it qualifies under 1a. What do you think? Starboy [ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

10-07-2002, 08:24 PM	#69
Calvan Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Abbotsford, B.C., Canada Posts: 77	Greetings ALL: I would like to suggest another aspect of dogma. I am suggesting that dogma as it is transformed into dogmatic behavior is the source of intolerance and discourtesy. If the above assumptions were correct, then this would be a very good reason why any scientific principle does not need to be treated as dogma. Why not? Because the scientist does not have to protest and seek to legitimize what they are saying by repetition or dogma because nature does that for them. The only reason that dogma is dogma is because those who use it do so in order to reinforce falsehood into becoming truth by the process of repetition. If something is said enough times, those that are willing or conditioned to become indoctrinated will come to believe it as true. I further suggest that if one has to employ dogma and hence dogmatic behavior, then one of the tools of that method of seeking to control others be by coercion of one form or another. Hence the employment of discourtesy as a form of coercion. My perspective is that science and the principles that are discovered through science are not and need not be thought of as being threatened by any argument that is based upon the beliefs generated by religions. The realities of science will outlive any human beings. (I suspect anyone in this forum who reads this will rise up in protest at this statement based upon my observation of the attitudes I have observed in this forum toward religious proselytizing.) The threat is from those who believe in dogmatic doctrine and/or allow themselves to become intimidated by such input. (I think I need to give the above assumptions further thought.) Calvan

10-08-2002, 07:47 AM	#70
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Starboy: It works for me, but let me ask you this: Do you see any difference between philosphical/scientific axioms, and 'dogma'? Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.