Scientific Dogma

Discussion in 'Politics' started by OPTIONAL777, Mar 4, 2011.

  1. A look in the review mirror of the history of science reveals the pattern of scientific dogma.

    Theories are made, discoveries are made, and scientific "facts" are established.

    Are these scientific truths and fact presented as "what we know now based on what we can know" or are they presented as creed and dogma?

    When deeper "facts" are discovered, the previously believed and preached scientific "facts" are discarded without any notice.

    A new creed and dogma is born, only to die as soon as the next deeper level of relative truth comes along.

    So why is it that we now look to the opinions of leading scientists, whose musings are accepted as creed and dogma...knowing full well that we don't have all the facts yet?

    Why would anyone looking back at all the wrong guesses of science, that were once accepted as absolute truths---but have since been revealed as only truths from a limited knowledge, not also come to the conclusion that current scientific knowledge is just as much of a product of limited thinking and limited instrumentation which produces limited and relativistic truths?

    Creed and dogma is what we have in science. Not objective expressions of "this is what we believe today, but we know it is not absolute."

    People actually believe whole heartedly that their very, very, distant relative was a monkey. They will claim to know this because of science. They will claim that descent theory is a proven fact (which it is not, it is not proven factually). The followers have embraced science with the same religious zeal and fervor of any religious person.

    Creed and dogma.
  2. Like the creed and dogma of global warming.
  3. Huh? Of course science is only facts of things we can it be anything different?

    Science looks at the facts and comes to a conclusion. When facts change and our knowledge expands, science evolves. This is exactly how the world should work...

    I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make. Are you trying to discredit science because scientists have been wrong in the past?
  4. Nonsense. Scientists adhere to that very expression. However, they are not quick to dismiss the conclusion that best presently supports the evidence in favor of some unfalsifiable construct fabricated with fancy rather than evidence. Scientists, unlike those who fear progress and advancement, are not quick to engage in false equivalency, which principally seeks to obscure and obfuscate. Just like the political Right, an observation that is all the more poignant since the political Right harbors a lot of suspicion about science, advancement, and clear and honest thought.
  5. I would refrain from bringing politics into the discussion, and especially lumping all right-leaning politicians into the same category.
  6. Why? Does the Right not, as a group, dismiss climate change despite the overwhelming evidence, in favor of a false equivalency argument presented by fringe members of the scientific community who, in most cases, are funded by Big Oil? Does the Right not, as a group, harbor "concerns" about stem cell research because of religious leanings which, historically, have always been suspicious of scientific research and inquiry? Does the Right, as a group, not seek to equate the "theory" of intelligent design with the overwhelming scientific support of evolution and natural selection, thereby giving ID unsubstantiated weight? I regard the two issues as fairly inseparable. Certainly there are exceptions to the general rule regarding Rightsters and their various dogmas and beliefs. However that is exactly what they are: exceptions to an otherwise fairly homogenous mind set. My point is that the people who generally dismiss the value and importance of science can generally be defined as a fairly identifiable group. Not a perfect definition and distinction, to be sure, but certainly a functional one.
  7. I don't believe you are thinking critically.

    Scientists are human, right?

    Okay. So they have the same human nature as everyone else.

    Do we see corruption in every single institution in the US?


    So why would scientists be immune?

    You think scientists are cigarette companies didn't know that cigarettes cause cancer?

    You think scientists at drug companies don't know that there are worse side effects than publicized? You think that scientific studies by drug companies, etc. are pure science and the scientists who perform them are above corruption?

    No, scientists are human. I am not talking about the "rules" of science. But do all scientists follow the rules, or can they be bought off just as easily as politicians?

    Would you have as much of a problem with Christianity, if all of the followers and leaders actually followed the teaching of Christ?

    So please detach, look critically at what is actually happening.

    Power corrupts...even at the "scientific" level.

  8. I think you can bring in politics, religion, and any other institution into the discussion. As all are influence by scientists and their opinions.

  9. I think scientists don't apply the same critical thinking in every case to scientists, which impacts politics, religion, our health, etc.

    To believe that scientists (human beings) are any less corruptible than politicians, Wall Street, religion, or any other institution is not reasonable.

    We see preachers preaching, and then getting caught doing the exact opposite of what they preach.

    So why wouldn't you expect the same behavior from scientists?

    There is so much information out there, that we can't possibly process it we turn to the news media for our news.

    Should we blindly trust any media source?

    There is so much going on behind the scenes in government, should we blindly trust the government?

    So why do the scientists so often get a free pass on their opinions?

    They are without an agenda but following the rules of science?

    At some levels, only a few scientists truly understand what is offered up as "scientific proof."

    Very few people can actually do the math of many of the advanced theories, and the concept of proof is getting less concrete as we go deeper into the exploration of our own world, and our own human mind.

    Someone who quotes a scientist and their opinion means exactly what?

    We should automatically believe what they are saying is actually true and proved...or that because Stephen Hawkings said it, then it has to be true?

    One truth is that when someone promotes a theory not proved, they typically do their best to try and prove it. They don't think critically about their own work, because human nature invariably wants the theory to be true.

    No, scientists are no more evolved on a human nature scale than any other human being.

    I am not saying distrust them...just don't trust them blindly...which is what I see happens much of the time in practical life.

  10. You see, that's the problem. Now you are not only speaking about right-wing politicians but right-wing minded people everywhere. Your comments seem to imply you are mostly referring to Republicans in the USA, but I'd rather not read between the lines. Literally speaking, you are saying all right-leaning people in the world are the same and believe all of which you stated in your post. This is simply not true.

    I consider myself right-leaning, but my views are vastly different than many other right-wingers.
    #10     Mar 4, 2011