Calvan

I heard some news today that creationism is being approved for being taught in some schools. There was an advocate speaking in favor of it that was accusing science of using dogma.

My questions are, what is dogma? Is it something that only applies to religion? Or may it also apply to science and/or politics?
What is propaganda and how is it differentiated from dogma, if at all?

Starboy

Hi Calvan,

Webster�s lists dogma as follows:

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

So if that is the definition you go by, then religion is dogma by both 1 and 2. Science certainly has its dogma. This is often the source of new science. In the case of evolution it is dogma, but only because it is a very successful scientific theory. Also you must understand it displaced previous theories that were a different form of creationism. So from a scientific point of view evolution is current science and creationism is old discredited science. It is similar to the old astronomy that held that everything in the solar system revolved around the Earth and new astronomy that holds that everything in the solar system rotates around the sun. The old theory was a religious theory held for religious reasons that was accepted as science. When the real science was done it was determined to be wrong. That is the same position we find ourselves in today with creationism vs. evolution. Creationism is the old science based on religion and evolution is the new science based on science.

If there were a class in dogma then I would say that creationism and science could be taught together. If you are going to have a science class, in particular a biology class then you will teach what is currently held to be biology by biologists. There is no doubt that there are controversies in biology, however evolution is not one of them. The vast majority of biologists do not hold creationism to be a valid scientific theory. It is very interesting to note that very few scientists that are biologist hold with creationism and they are not well known in their field. There do appear to be a number of scientist who are not biologist that feel that they are competent to pass judgment on what is biology and what is not.

There is no doubt that creationism is old science that was based on religion and that the current attempt to have it taught in science class is a thinly veiled attempt to teach religion as science.

Starboy

[ September 29, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Kent Stevens

Dogma is usually not thought to be capable of change while scientific knowledge can be thought of being altered. Once a relgious authority declares the dogma or doctrine that Jesus is God, there is no possibility of backtracking on such beliefs. While in science there is always the possibility of some new physical theory emerging which is at odds with previous ideas. Both science and religion give theories about the nature of the physical world.

Calvan

Thank you both Starboy and Kent Stevens for your thoughts.

I guess I was not specific enough in my question. I take it from what is said that dogma is not capable of change. I observe that there is no agreement that science has dogma because science is said to be capable of change, that being the essential difference between the theories of science and the theories of religion.

I wonder how religious dogma can be labeled theory if it is not capable of change? I also wonder if science ever treats its theories as dogma? And if either or both do so, does this indicate that there is simply sloppy employment of psychic processes by practitioners of either one or both? Or is the differentiation merely illusory?

Calvan

crocodile deathroll

Dogma is a bit like sailing in a ship with the rudder welded into the general direction you are going and hoping just by happenstance you will get to your destination.

Pragmatism is analogous to a ship with a steerable rudder where you can always have the option of slightly altering course.

Pragmatism wins out in the end.

Unless the evidence is absolute irrefutable like a spherical Earth, dogma is just pig headed obstacle for science

Calvan

crocodile deathroll

Is this an acknowledgement that scientists employ dogma? Or am I reading too much into your observation?

Thanks for the definition. That will be useful for me to remember. I wonder, though, if you are implying that pragmatism has only a "slightly altering course" an admission that it is ladened with dogma?

Once again, I am reading into what you say that dogma is employed by scientific method by virtue of it being a "pig headed obstacle for science".

Thank you for your thoughts.
Calvan

Starboy

There are several meanings for the word dogma. Which one did you have in mind? If you take the most liberal meaning then I think every field has its dogma. The difference between science and religion is that in science new dogma gets the Nobel Prize, whereas in religion new dogma gets crucified or at the very least excommunicated.

Starboy

Calvan

Starboy

I am prompted to consult Funk and Wagnall’s and it defines dogma thus:

“1. Theol. A doctrine or system of doctrine maintained by a religious body as true and necessary of belief. 2. A belief, principle, tenet, etc., more or less formally stated and held to be authoritative. 3. A system of such beliefs or principles: the dogmas of art. –Syn. See DOCTRINE.”

You write:

I have a problem with thinking of dogma as being attributable to every field. Are the principles of science something that scientists believe in? If so, then I have to ask, is it a valid psychic process for them to believe? Would it not be more consistent with scientific process to theorize, know, or something slightly less absolute than believe? And if scientists believe, and such is a legitimate scientific process, then I would have to suppose that there is dogma in science.
From the definition I take it that belief is an essential ingredient to the process of creating dogma whether the content of dogma be religious doctrine or scientific principle. So it seems to me that either it is inappropriate for scientific thought to believe or, if not, then dogma is indeed part of the scientific method.
Such a conclusion would leave me rather distressed because I would have to alter some of my assumptions about the scientific method.
I have to say that I enjoyed your illusion referring to dogma being “crucified or at the very least excommunicated.”
Thank you for your thoughts
Calvan

Mr. Sammi

Calvan, dogma is shouting down others because of the way they think.


Sammi Na Boodie (my hopes are with this post)

Calvan

Thank you Mr. Sammi for your comment.

I am afraid I do not understand the meaning of your comment "My hopes are with this post".


Is this a subtle way of saying that my thinking is dogmatic??? If it is, I would appreciate knowing and would be very interested in re-examining it.

Until I hear otherwise, the meaning I will take from it is that dogmatic behavior occurs not so much because of the nature of the discipline being argued as the process being employed ("shouting down") to argue one case against another.

Thank you again Mr. Sammi for your thoughts,

Calvan