Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Scientific Dogma

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2010 11:51:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I was reading an article about it, and how it has a major impact on the scientific process. Essentially there are theories that are so entrenched and accepted that they become a given. Any attempt at questioning the veracity of a given theory is quickly shot down by the old guard, so the theory remains dogmatic within science. The article explains that the problem isn't really the fault of the scientific method, but rather lies within human nature.

I don't claim to be a scientist, but am wondering if those on this site consider this of any significance in the general progress of science, or lack of progress. Since the "old guard" is generally in the university hierarchy, which in itself is a system subject to human failings, i could see this as being an unseen impediment for many young scientists.

The article was in the Huffington post if you are interested.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2010 12:06:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The unquestionable truth. The dogma doesn't exist in the debating world but rather it exists more when it comes to funding and sponsorship of scientific societies. Scientific Evolution Skeptics I hear get a hard time.

But yep, it exists and It will always exist.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2010 12:18:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/18/2010 12:06:09 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
The unquestionable truth. The dogma doesn't exist in the debating world but rather it exists more when it comes to funding and sponsorship of scientific societies. Scientific Evolution Skeptics I hear get a hard time.

But yep, it exists and It will always exist.

The odd thing is, consensus is generally considered good; an affirmation of a theory. However, in science it should be considered dangerous, as something that will result in dogma.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2010 1:27:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/18/2010 12:18:29 PM, innomen wrote:
The odd thing is, consensus is generally considered good; an affirmation of a theory. However, in science it should be considered dangerous, as something that will result in dogma.

Science is based on evidence. As long as you have the evidence to back up your claims, the scientific community will accept you. Ive yet to hear of a single case in the past 100 years, where someone who made a claim, AND had the evidence to back their claims up, were rejected solely on the premise of "This is how its been so were gonna keep it like this". Infact, quite the opposite, the only instances of scientific mistake, come from people who had faked their evidence.

Scientific consensus isnt a room full of scientists with a theory written on the board an putting hands up as to whether or not they will accept this theory as true or False. As said before, it relies solely on evidence.

The day that science refuses to accept new evidence is the day scientific consensus becomes remotely dangerous.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2010 1:34:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/18/2010 12:06:09 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
The unquestionable truth. The dogma doesn't exist in the debating world but rather it exists more when it comes to funding and sponsorship of scientific societies. Scientific Evolution Skeptics I hear get a hard time.

But yep, it exists and It will always exist.

Fail. There is no such thing as "Unquestionable truth" in science. Scientific evolution skeptics get a hard time, only because they:
1. Refuse or unable to provide evidence to support their claims
2. Refuse or unable to address any problems regarding their "alternative" explanations or problems with the evidence that they do provide to back up their claims.

There is no funding problem for these evolution skeptics. There are always tons of christian foundations willing to shill out millions.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2010 9:33:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Creationists, stop complaining that the scientists won't listen to you and provide actual science behind your claims. Then you have every right to complain about the scientific community being too dogmatic.

(Funny, too, to hear cries of "dogma!" coming from the religious.)

The end.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2010 9:39:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also huffingtonpost is a bit of lol in regards to science. They actively promote homeopathy and the religion is compatible with science line.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2010 9:46:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/18/2010 9:39:10 PM, Puck wrote:
Also huffingtonpost is a bit of lol in regards to science. They actively promote homeopathy and the religion is compatible with science line.

It's an opinion article written by a yoga master...I won't deny that, indeed, human nature can and does influence what science is accepted. Evolutionary theory was plagued very much by nationalism and racism, but the evidence won the day.

And that's the thing.

No matter how much "dogmatism" you have, science cannot ignore evidence. It is a self-correcting discipline, and the fact that science has progressed since there was ever a "scientific community" and continues to in the modern day testifies to how powerful that self-correction is--self-correction is necessary for scientific progress to happen at all. Otherwise the theories would stay exactly the same all this time.

Indeed, if there were proof that disproved evolution, that scientist's career would be made. Instead, you see creationists and yogis and paranormal "scientists" making their careers off of pandering to the people who believe them, evidence or no.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 1:57:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/18/2010 1:27:46 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/18/2010 12:18:29 PM, innomen wrote:
The odd thing is, consensus is generally considered good; an affirmation of a theory. However, in science it should be considered dangerous, as something that will result in dogma.

Science is based on evidence. As long as you have the evidence to back up your claims, the scientific community will accept you. Ive yet to hear of a single case in the past 100 years, where someone who made a claim, AND had the evidence to back their claims up, were rejected solely on the premise of "This is how its been so were gonna keep it like this". Infact, quite the opposite, the only instances of scientific mistake, come from people who had faked their evidence.

Scientific consensus isnt a room full of scientists with a theory written on the board an putting hands up as to whether or not they will accept this theory as true or False. As said before, it relies solely on evidence.

The day that science refuses to accept new evidence is the day scientific consensus becomes remotely dangerous.

I don't think that's true. Pull any connotation of religion, or specific religion versus science issues, away from the word dogma, as it seems that word clouds the issue. Scientists are still human and subject to the same defects of character as all humans are. Why is it such a stretch to think that scientists are just as capable of being dogmatic as anyone else.

If you add any outside influence (like ego) to the scientific method it will change or add to the variables within. It is inevitable that science will suffer from the failings of the imperfections of man at least in some degree. I know a couple scientists (doctors actually), and trust me they do have egos.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 9:22:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 1:57:46 AM, innomen wrote:
I don't think that's true. Pull any connotation of religion, or specific religion versus science issues, away from the word dogma, as it seems that word clouds the issue. Scientists are still human and subject to the same defects of character as all humans are. Why is it such a stretch to think that scientists are just as capable of being dogmatic as anyone else.

If you add any outside influence (like ego) to the scientific method it will change or add to the variables within. It is inevitable that science will suffer from the failings of the imperfections of man at least in some degree. I know a couple scientists (doctors actually), and trust me they do have egos.

Prove me wrong. Provide me with an example where scientists refused to accept something despite having sufficient evidence to back up their claims?

I mean, i understand your argument. Personal bias always comes into play. But this is only true if the scientific community is made up of an extremely small group of like-minded people. This isnt the case. What we have in the scientific community is a diverse and extremely large, as well as public, group, which opens their scientific discoveries in public journals such as Science and Nature, where anyone, if need be, can point out the discrepancies or discredit any other scientist.

In truth, i agree, we have been blinded by our own biases, and this is evident in hoaxes such as the Pilt Down man, which wasnt uncovered for 40 years. But such instances always included a Biases TOWARDS the presented evidence, and never AGAINST it. Especially in modern times.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 9:35:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 9:22:26 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/21/2010 1:57:46 AM, innomen wrote:
I don't think that's true. Pull any connotation of religion, or specific religion versus science issues, away from the word dogma, as it seems that word clouds the issue. Scientists are still human and subject to the same defects of character as all humans are. Why is it such a stretch to think that scientists are just as capable of being dogmatic as anyone else.

If you add any outside influence (like ego) to the scientific method it will change or add to the variables within. It is inevitable that science will suffer from the failings of the imperfections of man at least in some degree. I know a couple scientists (doctors actually), and trust me they do have egos.

Prove me wrong. Provide me with an example where scientists refused to accept something despite having sufficient evidence to back up their claims?

I mean, i understand your argument. Personal bias always comes into play. But this is only true if the scientific community is made up of an extremely small group of like-minded people. This isnt the case. What we have in the scientific community is a diverse and extremely large, as well as public, group, which opens their scientific discoveries in public journals such as Science and Nature, where anyone, if need be, can point out the discrepancies or discredit any other scientist.

In truth, i agree, we have been blinded by our own biases, and this is evident in hoaxes such as the Pilt Down man, which wasnt uncovered for 40 years. But such instances always included a Biases TOWARDS the presented evidence, and never AGAINST it. Especially in modern times.

I'm not a scientist, and i am not going to start looking into specific examples, it just isn't that important to me. I do spend a lot of time looking at the nature of man, specifically the innate dishonesty, and character defects that make us who we are. That sounds a little harsh as i write it, but the truth is; all men are flawed, and collectively we are also flawed. It is perfectly reasonable to expect imperfections in the process of scientific discovery and the scientific process itself when men are working on them. I am also fairly confident that there is no perfect egalitarian society within the scientific community as you seem to portray. Those who are published and carry greater academic prestige will carry greater weight and a louder voice than those who do not. Within that voice and weight comes the imperfection of man.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2010 7:33:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Huffington Post article was too abstract to bring much to the subject. There is something to be argued nonetheless.

Science has made some notable reversals in cases where it comes down to a clear issue decided by evidence. Einstein overcame Newton in less than two decades by predicting that gravity would warp starlight, and photos of an eclipse proved it did. The Steady State Theory of the universe was the consensus until Big Bang Theory predicted microwave background energy, which was soon discovered.

Science has a greater problem when evidence is statistical or a product of many factors. Then confirmation bias comes into play. Evidence supporting the theory is honored, while disconfirming evidence is discounted. The book, "The Hockey Stick Illusion" showed how well-meaning scientists playing with software to get a false reconstruction of temperature that they wanted. Similar things happen in the social scientists fairly regularly.

Consensus in science does not mean much; anything can be overcome with good evidence. The problem with the flat earth, creationism, and other such way-out theories is the evidence for the theories is not there.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2010 9:50:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/21/2010 9:35:01 AM, innomen wrote:
I'm not a scientist, and i am not going to start looking into specific examples, it just isn't that important to me. I do spend a lot of time looking at the nature of man, specifically the innate dishonesty, and character defects that make us who we are. That sounds a little harsh as i write it, but the truth is; all men are flawed, and collectively we are also flawed. It is perfectly reasonable to expect imperfections in the process of scientific discovery and the scientific process itself when men are working on them. I am also fairly confident that there is no perfect egalitarian society within the scientific community as you seem to portray. Those who are published and carry greater academic prestige will carry greater weight and a louder voice than those who do not. Within that voice and weight comes the imperfection of man.

No no, read carefully. I already admitted that scientists in the past, have made mistakes, and even gave an example of one, specifically the Pilt Down man. I never claimed that any scientific community is perfect. Stop putting words in my mouth.

What I did say, is that science has, in times, favored towards evidence, but never has favored AGAINST evidence. This is why the claims of the huffington post article and of Zanzinger are absurd, and flatly not true. Scientists today do not selectively reject evidence that goes against their current accepted worldview because of their dogma. If any scientist or creationist or anyone, presents sufficient evidence to back up their claims, they will be accepted as valid.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2010 12:45:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/22/2010 9:50:10 AM, tkubok wrote:

>>Scientists today do not selectively reject evidence that goes against their current accepted worldview because of their dogma. If any scientist or creationist or anyone, presents sufficient evidence to back up their claims, they will be accepted as valid.

I don't agree. In the Climategate scandal, scientists discussed how to prevent skeptics from getting published. In the IPCC writing process, dissenting viewpoints are systematically suppressed. The expert on hurricanes for the IPCC quit in protest when non-experts in hurricanes suppressed his conclusion and his supporting data that global warming would not make hurricanes worse. The "Hockey Stick" global warming paper was kept from review by skeptics, who eventually proved it false before a Senate committee. Skeptical data is systematically suppressed.

In the social sciences, there are many papers claiming that violent media promotes violence in society. A prominent skeptic psychologist pointed out the studies only showed an effect of desensitization for a few hours, and every long term study showed no effect.

It was not long ago when learned scientific societies proclaimed homosexuality to be a mental illness, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

One can argue that while such aberrations occur, today truth will always ultimately prevail. Sure, but that is the same situation as a hundred years ago. The nature of humans has not changed, and once a scientist commits to a conclusion, human nature is to defend that position against skeptics.
nickthengineer
Posts: 251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2010 1:27:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/18/2010 12:06:09 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
The unquestionable truth. The dogma doesn't exist in the debating world but rather it exists more when it comes to funding and sponsorship of scientific societies. Scientific Evolution Skeptics I hear get a hard time.

But yep, it exists and It will always exist.

Except when the intelligentsia sit on their thrones sipping tea a crumpets whilst refusing to debate:

http://creation.com...
I evolved from stupid. (http://www.debate.org...)
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2010 1:38:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The scientific community has, again and again, revised it's knowledge when proven wrong. Who else can claim that?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2010 1:39:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Bawwww, scientists who actually know what they're talking about won't accept ideas that have no evidence behind them! I'm so oppressed!"
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2010 1:41:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/15/2010 1:38:12 PM, Yvette wrote:
The scientific community has, again and again, revised it's knowledge when proven wrong. Who else can claim that?

behaviorism had a good run at it though.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2010 1:48:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/15/2010 1:27:27 PM, nickthengineer wrote:
Except when the intelligentsia sit on their thrones sipping tea a crumpets whilst refusing to debate:

http://creation.com...

Debates, especially the types that creationists want to do, is basically a circus. True debates within the scientific community, and between scientists, occur within journals and articles.

I dont blame many scientists who reject debates like these. Just like i dont blame Kent Hovind to reject the debate request made, which consisted of debating in a magazine over a period of months. What Creationists are concerned about, isnt truth, or evidence. Its simply winning the debate. This is no different than a lawyer trying to win a case. Lawyers will lie and deceive to win, and this is no different than creationists.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2010 1:50:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/15/2010 1:39:31 PM, Yvette wrote:
"Bawwww, scientists who actually know what they're talking about won't accept ideas that have no evidence behind them! I'm so oppressed!"

Yeah, thats another reason. Debates with actual scientists, give the impression to the public that Creationism is something that is actually debated within the scientific community, which isnt true.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 11:19:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/15/2010 1:48:59 PM, tkubok wrote:
Debates, especially the types that creationists want to do, is basically a circus. True debates within the scientific community, and between scientists, occur within journals and articles.

I dont blame many scientists who reject debates like these.

If a scientific issue has little impact on public policy, then I think scientists have no obligation to debate the issue. Most scientific questions are far too abstruse and obscure to be of public interest. However, whenever there are public policy implications, then scientists ought to step up and defend their conclusions. The public policy implication of Creationism has to do with what is taught in schools. Scientists are also citizens and members of society, so they need to fulfill that obligation, and they have the knowledge required to do so.

A good example is the scientific consensus, only few decades ago, that homosexuality was a form of mental illness. There were strong legal implications of that bit of "science." It deserved public debate.

Now there are those who support banning violent video games, using what I consider to be bogus science to support their position. It deserves debate.

Global warming crisis has very strong public policy implications. Scientists advocating the theory uniformly refuse to debate dissenting scientists. On the rare occasions that CO2-crisis advocates do debate, they lose badly. So they don't do debate any more.

Not every scientist is a good debater, but not everyone needs to debate the issues. It is only important that some reasonable number stand up to address the issues in which they specialize. If, like the global warming crisis guys, they claim that all the good debaters happen to be on the other side, then you have to wonder how that's possible.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 1:30:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
There are scientists that believe in God, have religion, and some are even creationist.

Many, many scientists are dogmatic. Granted, most religious people are as well, but that does not belie the fact that scientists can be dogmatic.

Theories and laws are disproved all the time.

Personally, I believe that science and religion will converge.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 2:00:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 1:30:30 PM, Ren wrote:
Theories and laws are disproved all the time.

http://www.dailyhaggis.com...
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 2:17:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 1:30:30 PM, Ren wrote:
There are scientists that believe in God, have religion, and some are even creationist.

Many, many scientists are dogmatic. Granted, most religious people are as well, but that does not belie the fact that scientists can be dogmatic.

Theories and laws are disproved all the time.

Personally, I believe that science and religion will converge.

Give, oh...4 examples. Over a short period of time.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 2:19:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 2:17:03 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/31/2010 1:30:30 PM, Ren wrote:
There are scientists that believe in God, have religion, and some are even creationist.

Many, many scientists are dogmatic. Granted, most religious people are as well, but that does not belie the fact that scientists can be dogmatic.

Theories and laws are disproved all the time.

Personally, I believe that science and religion will converge.

Give, oh...4 examples. Over a short period of time.

Disproved theories and laws?

" As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc."
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2010 2:49:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/31/2010 2:17:03 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/31/2010 1:30:30 PM, Ren wrote:
There are scientists that believe in God, have religion, and some are even creationist.

Many, many scientists are dogmatic. Granted, most religious people are as well, but that does not belie the fact that scientists can be dogmatic.

Theories and laws are disproved all the time.

Personally, I believe that science and religion will converge.

Give, oh...4 examples. Over a short period of time.

That's a pretty major qualifier.