doubtingt

Dogma seems to be most often used to denote a belief or system of beliefs that is held without question and accepted as true on authoritarian grounds. Starboys definition (1b and 1c) support this.
From this standpoint, Evolution is a tenet of biology and an near universally accepted idea among scientists, however it is not Dogma because the basis for its acceptance is evidence and reasoning and not authority.

It is possible to accept evolution on authority and to teach it in an authoritarian manner, thus it would become dogma in that particular circumstance.
However, creationism is not kept out of the classroom b/c it challenges dogmatic authority. Just the opposite. Creationism is either untestable or proven incorrect, thus it can only be accepted as dogma via authority, making it antithetical to science in general.

Starboy

It has been my experience that when people get hung up on words instead of a specific meanings and aims the discussion melts down into a puddle of acrimony. There is certainly a little of part 2 of your definition in science. It sometimes is referred to as the old guard. Einstein never quite got over the indeterminism inherent in quantum mechanics. Also I would say that science is naturalistically dogmatic in that all disputes regarding conflicting theories may only be settled by nature. In other words the results of experiment is the only test. I would say that scientists are pretty dogmatic about that. But if your intent is to form a body of knowledge about the natural world that is really the only way it can be done. And if other dogmas are going to be called science, then they must also be put the test of nature. If it does not pass the test and its proponents still insist it is science, well who cares.

Starboy

doubtingt

Pointing out that individual scientists can and have behave in a non-scientific and dogmatic way has nothing to do with the issue.
The question is whether the near universal acceptance of evolutionary principles among scientists is in itself an instance of dogma.
Both the common everyday use of this term and the formal definitions you put forth would say "No".

As for naturalism, this is a central principle in science, but also does not constitute dogma.
This principle is based on the fact that publically observable events are the only things which are known to exist outside the mind, thus they are the only criteria that can be examined to evaluate the correspondence between ideas about the world and the world itself.
Nothing in scientific philosophy says that there is nothing beyond the observable world. Science simply recognizes that in the absence of observable events there is nothing that can be used as a criteria to distinguish accurate from innaccurate ideas about the world.

Starboy

Hey doubtingt,

I was applying the definition Calvin posted as well as others that I have read. Appeal to nature is an "established opinion of science", it is more than that it is a definite "authoriatative tenet". But who cares, dogma, dogdad, why get so bothered about it, science still works! That is what is important about science not some word like dogma. It is used by Christians as just another smoke screen to confuse people about the difference between science and religion.

Starboy

Calvan

Hi doubtingt, you responded:

I appreciate your comments. Your idea that a science taught in an authoritarian manner is transformed into dogma at the time it is being taught sounds very interesting. I hope that I am paraphrasing you correctly. That certainly raises a real objection to teaching in an authoritarian manner, in my view.
I am looking at the idea that scientific principles can be transformed into dogma. (I have heard those who argue in favor of keeping the teaching of creationism in the schools use the same kind of argument. They hold that science has its dogma just as religion has its dogma for perhaps exactly the reason you have highlighted.)
However, I would ask it the transformation of scientific principles into dogma real, even for a moment? Or is it an illusion?

Referring to Starboys quote:
The interpretation of the phrases “established opinion” which could be argued applies to knowledge concerning scientific principles and theory, and “definite authoritative tenet” which could also be considered a characteristic of scientific knowledge concern me. I seem to observe a readiness to interpret these phrases as being attributable to scientific theory.
The other half of the definition points to the doctrines of the church as being the authority for dogma.

I wonder about the effects of labeling scientific knowledge as dogma. Is there not some important distinction between the scientific method and the indoctrination of religious doctrine being lost when this happens? Does this foster the kind of thinking that gives justification to the teaching of religion in schools?

You later deny that being dogmatic is relevant to the issue.

I would like to suggest that “the near universal acceptance” is a far cry from the certitude of dogma.

Agreed. Thank you doubtingt for your thoughts. It seems that I almost agree that:

I suspect that there are events that occur in human beings that are not observable except to the person experiencing them. But that is another topic.
Thanks again,
Calvan

Starboy

Hi Calvin,
I am very sure that any scientist of professional merit will hold the tenet that all disputes regarding theory must be decided by experiment or observation. If they did not hold this they would not be scientists. That may be the only dogma that science possesses, but there it is. It has been the guiding principle of science for the last four hundred years.

The important distinction between science and religion is that scientific controversy is not settled by man, but by nature and as a result even thought there is no central authority for the practice of science, science is practiced all over the world with very good agreement. Science has found an authority other than man that actually works!

Religion on the other hand has many central authorities and supposedly an overarching authority that is god and yet there are many more kinds of Christianity then there are salad dressings. That is because religious central authority is useless. It doesn’t work.

Can there be any clearer difference between religion and science. Science – authority of nature, religion – authority of god.

In regards the troubling news of creationist trying to displace evolution in the classroom, this could not happen if the public knew what science was and how it was conducted. Because people are so ignorant they cannot see the distinction of knowledge gained from nature vs. religious dogma and it is difficult for them to see how specious the creationist argument are. And since religion is so powerful in this society it is possible to displace the authority of nature with the authority of god. This is exactly what they are trying to do. It is stupid, shortsighted, destructive and eventually futile, but these are Christians we are talking about.

Starboy

Calvan

Hi Starboy. You write:

I take it that I qualify as one of the “people” to which you refer. I appreciate your criticism as it provides me with an opportunity to either defend or agree with you or something in between.
With respect, in defence, what do I do to avoid getting “hung up on words instead of a specific meanings”? I am able to only guess what “hung up” means. I assume that it is a state without grace or somehow wanting in ability to think, that my employment of words is also wanting. Beyond that, I cannot guess.
To accept this criticism as I understand it, I must cease using words and thinking lest I “get hung up”.
With respect, Starboy, without words I cannot think!
And if I am obliged to not think, then how do you propose I obtain the “specific meanings and aims” that you advocate? To whom would I go to obtain them if I am not permitted to use words to formulate them by thinking?
And if I were to indeed go to someone whom I could trust to be an authority, would I them be learning dogma? Would I be using the scientific method of learning? Or would I be setting myself up to spend the rest of my life being indoctrinated? How would I discriminate between doctrine and scientific principle? How would I protect myself from all manner of “truths” otherwise known as dogma that create so much dysfunction in the lives of human beings?
The other problem area of your criticism is “melts down into a puddle of acrimony.” I am wondering what it is about the use of words and thinking that creates acrimony? Is it dogma being challenged that creates acrimony? I cannot comprehend how anything other than very dogmatic doctrine arousing acrimony.
With respect, my understanding is that when people share what they think, they do so with an interest in seeking to broaden their own perspectives by valuing what others say that seems to make sense to them. I would suggest that this would be an occasion to rejoice rather than develop acrimony. Why would acrimony enter any discussion if freedom to think for oneself and to ask questions is respected. And if acrimony occurs, then what does that say about the process of discussion being employed? Does it become authoritarian and dogmatic?
I think Mr Sammi says it with style:
And

With respect, Starboy, all that I have said here may be totally irrelevant if I have hallucinated that you implied any criticisms of my questions or my thinking concerning dogma.

Reespectfully,

Calvan

Just a note: The questions that I ask are important to me.

Calvan

Originally posted by Starboy on September 30, 6:28pm.:

To Starboy: Greetings!

I must sincerely say, Starboy, that I am impressed with your post of September 30, 6:28pm. It is a humbling experience for me to read your post. It represents to me a splendid example of how to be concise and to the point. I hope you understand that I am suitably embarrassed because I scrutinized your previous posts altogether too critically given they were spontaneous responses (assumption) as opposed to the above response (another assumption based upon the difference in style.) In doing so, I have overlooked that writing spontaneously leaves one susceptible to criticism for “misspeaking”. I sincerely apologize to you for my arrogance and trust that my own embarrassment exceeds any discomfort I may have caused you.
(As an irrelevant point of interest, my wife is a Christian and so are all of the people with whom I associate. I think I must get out more!)
I am moved to express agreement as to the peril of displacing the authority of nature with the authority of god. That would be, in my opinion, disastrous. (But that is another topic)
Finally, I very much appreciate your responses because as a result of them and others I have gained more clarity of the issues around dogma.

Calvan

MBR

As to the speaker and whether it can apply to science, no way. In fact your speaker is quite the fool if he thinks that. Science is the opposite of dogma and if dogma is involved with an experiment, then by definition, it isn't science.

Politics and religion, however, are just about 100% dogma. You can't count on eithor. We can only hope that each will look to science for their dogma as opposed to whatever deity they concoct in their heads.

Starboy

Thank you Calvan. No problem. It is a limitation of the medium. We have never met. I do not have the familiarity of your use of terms as a referent for understanding your intended point of view. As such it sometimes takes a few experimental exchanges to get to the heart of the matter. A flip reply could imply a flip poster or it could indicate a lack of communication.

Starboy