Is science dogma?

Johnny Neuron · Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 5:52 pm Post subject: Is science dogma?

Okay, so I had the bright idea that I could debate Christian fundamentalists and change them. Yeah right, it's more likely for monkey's to fly out of my hind-quarters before that happens. Anyway, in my "delightful" conversations with them I have been accused of treating science as a religion. I have been told that I am dogmatic in my assertions (which were all scientifically, secularly and logically based). My question is, how do you know if you are dogmatic?

I mean, certain people could treat science in a dogmatic way. They don't deny the truth of evolution, but some biologists are quite "religious" in their personal theories of how evolution works and how it has developed. Even the best of scientists are only human, which means they have emotions, biases and limitations in knowledge. How far should this understanding affect our general view of current scientific theories? At what point can we rightfully call something fact without slipping into dogmatism? I constantly hear people, fundies and atheists alike, who say that they "have an open mind." Well, just what does that really mean? What should an open mind be like?

Bradley

stevepainter · Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:58 pm Post subject: Re: Is science dogma?

I'll chime in - why not?

Having an open mind means accepting the possibility that you may be wrong about everything you think you know.

Now, that isn't to say that there aren't varying degrees of liklihood that different things are true or not. But if you push most theists to the proverbial wall, they fall back on the "faith" concept. They "know" there is a God because they have faith. They are unwilling to accept the possibility that they may be wrong.

If you realize and accept that you might be wrong you have an open mind.

That's my 2 cents anyway.

Johnny Neuron · Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 10:29 pm Post subject: Steve...

Steve-

I agree that there are things we all say we "know" but really they could be wrong. But I feel a little uncomfortable saying that about everything I know and/or believe. All sane people believe that they actually exist, that the world is real outside of themselves. Is it possible that this is not true, that we actually are just an advanced computer program run by aliens ala "The Matrix?" Yes, it's possible. Is being willing to believe that we are actually living on the inside of a spherical earth being "open-minded" to the idea? Forgive my reductio ad absurdum, I am pretty sure that this is not what you had in mind by your definition of open-minded.

All the same, I agree that there is a continuum of ideas in which one end is utterly implausible to the point of it being nearly certainly impossible and the other end having such a high degree of probability that we can say it is fact without any hesitation. The dilemma is at what point can we become dogmatic or absolutistic in our claims? Can we rightly call heliocentrism an absolute fact? Only the insane or inebriated would say no. Can we be absolutely certain that humans evolved from lesser organisms? The overwhelming majority of scientifically minded people would say so. Did life originate on this planet, or elsewhere (ie "panspermia")? Now things get a little foggier.

I guess I'm trying to forumulate some guidelines on where to draw the line between conviction and dogmatism. Personally, I think that we can and should have strong convictions about certain things, evolution is most likely one of them. As for other things, well, I just don't know. (Is that open-minded?)

Bradley

stevepainter · Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 10:53 pm Post subject: Re: Steve...

I'll agree that it's not really useful to consider the possibility that we, ourselves, don't actually exist. There are a few things that, as a practical concern, we must consider to be as close as anything can be to absolutely correct. However, I still stand by my notion: being "open minded" means accepting that we may be wrong.

If you think about it, that's exactly what the scientific method dictates. Even those rules that science terms "laws" are not sacrosanct. Many of the great leaps forward in scientific knowledge came from challenging "laws". This is completely the opposite of a dogmatic approach. That's not to say that many people in the scientific community don't behave in a dogmatic way at times. People are people, no matter whether they're scientists, priests, or average fools like us posting on message boards. But the institution of science is, if anything, anti-dogmatic, while most of the institutions of religious thinking are at least partially dogmatic.

Johnny Neuron · Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 11:01 pm Post subject: Re: Steve...

So when someone like Richard Dawkins says that evolution is a fact and that only ignorant people or fools say otherwise he was actually stepping out of bounds from a scientific perspective?

stevepainter · Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2002 11:15 pm Post subject: Re: Steve...

Not at all. I happen to believe that if you managed to show Richard Dawkins hard evidence that evolution did not happen, he would not cling stubbornly to belief in it anyway.

I suppose I can't really speak for Mr. Dawkins, but as long as he accepts that the facts he thinks he knows might be overturned by future discoveries, he remains open minded.

Jeremy1952 · Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2002 12:09 am Post subject: Re: Is science dogma?

"When the evidence does not fit the theory, the scientist discards the theory - the theologian discards the evidence."

Edited by: Jeremy1952 at: 12/30/02 11:10:16 pm


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT