Starboy

doubtingt, I do not think we disagree in any substantive way. You object to the use of the word dogma because I think you use it in a different way than I do. It all depends on what you mean by dogma. If you take it as:

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet.

Then yes it is dogma. If you take it as:

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

Then it is definetly not 2. My point was that it qualifies by 1a. Thus it is dogma. I also tried to make the point to Calvan, that dogma is just a word. The results of science speak for themselves and even if the naturalistic viewpoint and methods of Science are dogma then who cares, it works very well indeed.

If you were starting out as a scientist at the time when the scientific approach was new, there would be little reason to expect that it would do better than any other approach of the time such as philosophy or religion. But we are now 400 years past that point. The results are in. The scientific method is authoritative precisely because it works very well.

Science is more than what can be inferred by the senses. If you do science completely by yourself you run the risk of having no way of separating the subjective from objective. The method Science uses to discover objective reality is by using more than one observer. By requiring that Science be a multi-person activity it does remove some of the subjective because your observations about nature have to agree with others. Again don't get me wrong, you can explore nature by yourself if you like, but if you want to do "S"cience you must join in with the scientists. The objective reality check has also withstood the test of time. The history of science is littered with co-discoveries that are completely independent and scattered all over the globe and at different times in history.
Science and scientists do have a higher authority that they defer to, some call it reality but I like to call it nature. Science is the study of nature so it makes perfect sense to defer to nature as the final authority. Some religious people like to call this dogma, and by 1a they are right again. But I think it makes the differences between science and religion clear:

science - authority of nature
religion - authority of god

It also explains the battle between science and religion. The religious do not want to cede authority to anyone but god. The scientists do not care because nature is very real and there is nothing to make one think that god matters at all. To the religious god is everything and find the scientific point of view sacrilegious. The scientists could care less but we can’t turn our back on the religious. They want their way, reality or not and are willing to stoop to anything to get it. Thus we have fundamentalism, creationism and ID.

Starboy

Starboy

doubtingt, this empirical boundary you speak of is the very dogma I am referring to. A scientist would rightly say that if what you do is not bound by it, then it is not science. You can't get any more dogmatic than that.

You just don't like that word do you?

It is hard for me to understand how someone would have no problem with religious dogma but then take exception to scientific dogma unless you were witnessing first hand the battle between science and religion.

Starboy

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

Starboy

Hi Calvan,

I am not sure I understand your question. Can you please clarify?

I am not sure what you mean by more sound. Is a gun sounder than a slingshot? Is an automobile more sound than a horse and buggy? Science is clearly an invention of man just as man invented philosophy and religion. I have no idea if it is more sound. It depends on what you mean by more sound. If understanding your surroundings is what you are after then it certainly works better by far then anything else before it. If you want to know why you are here, well it supplies a great deal of fact and knowledge but you will have to draw your own conclusions.

I do not contend that scientific knowledge is dogma in that it cannot change, but for many scientists, areas such as quantum mechanics, electrodynamics, thermodynamics are taken as tenets and as such would be dogma. As well regarded as this knowledge is, it would be abandoned if better theories were to come along. What I am saying is that some of the methods of science are held and practiced by scientists dogmatically. The most important and notable example is: in science nature is the final authority. This is NOT open for discussion. Doing so would ruin the career of any scientist that did so. That is dogma. I see nothing wrong with it. If understanding nature is what you seek then dogmatically requiring that nature stand as the final authority in regards to things scientific is as it should be.

I hope this makes my position clear.

Starboy

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

Mr. Sammi

Calvan, I think it is difficult to seperate dogma and the protection of dogma. Some dogmatic behaviour arises as you noted from the manner in which the particular dogma is argued.

I am noting the case of science being argued dogmatically especially when arguing against non-scientific minds. Science has a principal stumbling block in the way it is argued, because "the others", do not posess scientific basics, leaving the science minded to use "common sense" where most often one can find dogmatic manners.


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Laurentius

I am curious to know how people here would argue there is any difference between fact and dogma.

AVE

Mr. Sammi

Laurentius : Touché.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Starboy

Thank you Laurentius. My point exactly, the confict between science and religion is real but it has nothing to do with dogma and everything to do with which authority you accept.

There appear to be those whose only authority is the god within them.

Starboy

Calvan

To Mr. Sammi, Laurentius, and Starboy

I have not at any time suggested that nature is not the final authority. Nor was I discussing whether or not it should be or should not be. Clearly, it is the final authority. It is remarkable to me that one of your scientific ability needs to resort to slanderous implications to make his point. E.g.: “There appear to be those whose only authority is the god within them.”


I was unaware that the criteria for discussion in this forum was to be in possession of “scientific basics”. I infer that I am one of the “others”. I take it that this is the reason that the science minded have to employ dogmatic manners in communicating with me or others like me? Does this apparent fact also justify the use of discourteous manners as well?

I in turn am curious to know why you do not replace the word “how” with “why”.

I will desist postings that are characterized by questions concerning denotation.

Laurentius

Eventually it may be a matter of epistemology.

I admit the question was intentionally tricky.

It is not fact and dogma that should be equated but fact and belief.

Observable facts allow scientific theories on the environment to develop according to which modern technology can control and shape the environment. (Scientific laws and theories are verifiable in pracice.)
Not only do scientific theories prove right by being embodied in succesful technologies - they can also be permanently falsified.

Beliefs (on which dogma grounds) do not allow any of this.

AVE

Starboy

Laurentius, I agree that the product of science is falsifiable, but what of the method of science? Can it be falsified?

Starboy