Calvan

Greeting again Starboy
I agree that your definition is easy to grasp, Starboy.

Am I correct to observe that you equate the existence of authority with the creation of dogma?

Or is it the appeal to authority that creates dogma?

Does the a priori quality of the non-existence of contradictory evidence provide the above statement with veracity?
How do you know there is no contradictory evidence?

Does not your employment of pragmatism (which I assume to be judgment of value based on results) evidence that one approach is more sound than the other? [/QUOTE]

I am not sure that we are agreeing on what the point is. We agree “They simply conclude that there must be a natural explanation that they are as yet unaware of.” But I do not hear the agreement around “unspoken scientific dogma.”

This statement causes me real concern. Your reference to businessmen, bankers, and judges (you omitted politicians) leads me to ask, are they not the most dogmatic people? Would it be too much of a stretch for me to suggest that they may compete very favorably with religions in their effects upon people in the world?

I would suggest your observation about the unstated idea is absolutely correct. Is dogma …I don’t want to use the word bad? I would rather ask what are its effects upon people? I am having real difficulty perceiving that there is any such thing as dogma that does not take away from people in one way or another.

Calvan

Starboy

I have no idea if you observed it or not. Science is a social activity. It is not enough for you to observe the phenomena, you would have to record it, verify it, get it published in a peer reviewed journal, then verified by your peers. If other scientists cited it or used it as a starting point for further investigations then I would say you have done science and you have discovered a bit of reality. Darwin almost missed out on getting credit for ToE because he waited so long to publish. In some sense this process is a science sanity check, reality is not reality unless it can be shared. Even then mass dilusion is possible, which is why science must be always skeptical.

Starboy

American Agnostic

The point is that a scientific hypothesis is formulated based on available observations and states what sort of new observations will support it or disprove it. The hypothesis of divine intervention isn't based on any current observations (the Bible and faith in God don't count) and it offers no way to be supported or disproven. My problem with divine intervention isn't that no evidence has been seen for it, its that no evidence can be seen AGAINST it. What good is a theory if it can never be proven wrong. This aspect makes it pseudoscience.

Starboy

Calvan, I am not defending dogma. I only accept its existence as so defined. I don't care about the word dogma per say. It is just a word that can be used as a socially charged evaluative word. It is a common tactic to deflect attention by throwing out controversial words instead of addressing the issues. Instead of saying “it is dogma”, I could just as well say “it is established opinion”, but if I wanted to confuse and arouse the emotions then I would use the word dogma. In my posts to you I use the word dogma because that is the word you use. Some people are fond of using such words instead of making their thoughts clear. Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying that is your intent. Before interpreting “dogma” in such an evaluative manner it is best to understand what I mean by that word.

To me Calvan it appears that you use the word dogma to evaluative whereas I use it to describe, as such for you “them’s fightin words” and for me it is just a word that happens to fit, what is important is the idea and meaning not the social connotation, unless of course your intent is to be controversial.

Starboy

Starboy

Well, yes. That has been my point. To science, if it can be measured or observed it IS reality. To science, anything that can't be measured or observed just doesn't exist. If "god" were detected, a scientist would say we have found ET. There would be no way we could know we found "god" even if "god" told us so. A scientist would say: "We have discovered strange and new life in the universe."

How could you not see that science is dogmatic? BTW, I see nothing wrong with that. If it works don't fix it!

Starboy

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

doubtingt

I have never met a scientist who doesn't believe that there is a near certain probability that numerous yet unobserved phenomenon do exist.
The long history of establishing the existence of things that were not previously observable makes a failure to acknowledge that some unobserved things must exist an irrational position.
In fact many unobserved phenomenon have been all but proven to exist (e.g. dinasours) by making logical inferences from evidence we can observe (e.g., fossils). Science requires only that the validity of an idea be judged by its ability to explain and predict what we can verify via the senses. This rule is not dogma. It exists simply b/c to date, no one has ever made a sound logical argument that there can be any other means to verify induced ideas about the world.
Nothing in that requirement even suggests that one must believe unobserved phenomenon do not exist.

doubtingt

It should leave a bad taste, because such a conclusion is both dogmatic and irrational.
Fortunately for science, nothing in the philosophy, methods, or practice of science suggests such a conclusion or even assumes it to be true.

Philosoft

Doubtingt & Starboy,

From a reader's point of view, it seems your disagreement is merely a matter of semantics.

Starboy says science dismisses unobservable phenomena. This is true. Theists who claim that divine beings are a priori unobservable are making a fundamentally non-scientific claim, unless they can provide some other reliable method of divine observation.

doubtingt says science cannot dismiss unobserved phenomena. This is also true, for reasons you have already provided.

Starboy

doubtingt & Philosoft,

Please, do not get me wrong. IMO, all that is known or could ever be known, even if it is never discovered, by science, will always be natural. That is the dogma I am refering to. To use a glib marketing phrase "Science is all natural."

Starboy

doubtingt

I don't think it is a matter of semantics. Several of Starboys statements state that science has concluded that the unobserved or unobservable world does not exist.
Some examples include:
"From a scientific point of view there is no such thing as the unobservable world"
"To science, anything that can't be measured or observed just doesn't exist."

These statements are false for reasons I have pointed out. This is an important point b/c Starboy correctly argues that such a claim is dogmatic b/c it cannot be rationally supported and can only be accepted on authority.
It is equally dogmatic to say that "UnobservABLE phenomenon do not exist."

These ideas represent a very common misconception about science and many students I've encountered resist science b/c they hold such a misconception and conclude that science is being close minded and dogmatic.

The fact is that science merely places empirical boundaries on the claims that can be verified. It is and must be agnostic about any claim that cannot be directly (or indirectly) verified with observations. Science does not claim the unobservable doesn't exist. Science claims that the propositions that have no observable implications cannot be verified as either true or false. These positions are fundamentally different. The latter is defensible on rational grounds, thus not an unquestionable authoritative and dogmatic tenet.