Is scientific dogma more insidious than religion?

[r~]

It is widely accepted that religion is more prone to dogma and science authority most strenuously denies that the scientific method might be construed to propagate dogma as long and far as possible.

Is scientific dogma more insidious than religious dogma?
If your answer is no, please cite your proof and better explanation.

in the spirit of peace
rwjefferson

[Excubis]

Is scientific dogma more insidious than religious dogma?
If your answer is no, please cite your proof and better explanation.

Depends first on whitch definition of "insidious" you want answered.

If you mean 1) insidious: as means to entrap then No.
2) insidious: to be deceitful intentionally then No.
3) insidious: to proceed in what seem harmless but has harmful consequences. I would say not worse than religion but yes in some fields and about some accepted theories.

Now some clarification, as per 1 definition I say no yet how an individual uses findings is not sciences fault ie. An atheist saying science proves no god because (whatever you want to put). I say this isn't science's fault simply because actual science is a methodology not a ideological paradigm. This would be my clarification for definition 2 as well. What an individual does with a methodology cannot be blamed on a method. Yet ideologies such as religion are filled with such applications to convert non believers.

Definition 3 I would absolutely say yes but not more than religion. This does depend of field of study. My own field is filled with dogma, just because a premise appears to fit does not mean you should just accept it and avoid questioning the theory, but I work in the social sciences not the "hard" fields. Certain aspects of science become dogmatic but the scientific method always ends up changing our current understanding. I will say this also depends on the religion as well some denominations of faith are very closed off, others not so.

I personally feel that this is a broad question and cannot be applied to science but perhaps scientists. Just because a theory is accepted does not make it true evidentiary support is what shows it to be so. This in the hard sciences, those based on mathematical proofs have not to my knowledge been overturned only the construct of where and how it is applied ie. newtonian gravity and general relativity.

Yet as I have said an ideology is quite different than a methodology. These are fundamentally different. When used correctly the scientific method will prove itself, where as an ideology needs faith to sustain itself so more acts of insidious behaviors take place with in religion than in the scientific method.

[Beans]

Is scientific dogma more insidious than religious dogma?
If your answer is no, please cite your proof and better explanation.

Science is, pretty much by definition, non-dogmatic. Dogma thinks it has the answers already. Science knows it hasn't and is driven by questions

If you think there is such a thing as scientific dogma perhaps you could tell us what it is?

By the very definition you gave, science does have dogma, else we would not have experienced it's premature application over and over to the point that this earth is now in worse shape and it's continued existence more threatened than ever before in history.

That is by your definition of science, for if Dogma thinks it has the answers already and as much from science has obviously then been rushed into application as has been proven to our injury, then science is used just as dogma except with far more devastating results for the earth.

[Danmark]

Is scientific dogma more insidious than religious dogma?
If your answer is no, please cite your proof and better explanation.

Science is, pretty much by definition, non-dogmatic. Dogma thinks it has the answers already. Science knows it hasn't and is driven by questions

If you think there is such a thing as scientific dogma perhaps you could tell us what it is?

By the very definition you gave, science does have dogma, else we would not have experienced it's premature application over and over to the point that this earth is now in worse shape and it's continued existence more threatened than ever before in history.

That is by your definition of science, for if Dogma thinks it has the answers already and as much from science has obviously then been rushed into application as has been proven to our injury, then science is used just as dogma except with far more devastating results for the earth.

I disagree with both the definition of dogma as presented in these posts, and with the definition of science presented.

"Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities"
_wikipedia

There is a concerted effort in some of these debates to use the fallacy of equivocation; i.e. using the same word to mean different things or to mangle different concepts until they are shaped to fit several applications.

The only 'dogma' that can be attributed to science is that it should have no dogma unless the 'search for truth' be called 'dogma.' The hallmark of science is that it values what can be measured and that measurements should be capable of being repeated by others under the same conditions and yield the same results.

This is completely different and is in direct opposition to religious dogmas that declare something is so because it is so; 'truth' by proclamation. Religious dogmas exist independently of objective truth. To equate a specific religious claim or dogma, with the idea that truth should be discovered by objective means instead of accepting what has traditionally been called 'truth' turns the definition of dogma on its head.

[Beans]

Is scientific dogma more insidious than religious dogma?
If your answer is no, please cite your proof and better explanation.

Science is, pretty much by definition, non-dogmatic. Dogma thinks it has the answers already. Science knows it hasn't and is driven by questions

If you think there is such a thing as scientific dogma perhaps you could tell us what it is?

By the very definition you gave, science does have dogma, else we would not have experienced it's premature application over and over to the point that this earth is now in worse shape and it's continued existence more threatened than ever before in history.

That is by your definition of science, for if Dogma thinks it has the answers already and as much from science has obviously then been rushed into application as has been proven to our injury, then science is used just as dogma except with far more devastating results for the earth.

I disagree with both the definition of dogma as presented in these posts, and with the definition of science presented.

"Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities"
_wikipedia

There is a concerted effort in some of these debates to use the fallacy of equivocation; i.e. using the same word to mean different things or to mangle different concepts until they are shaped to fit several applications.

The only 'dogma' that can be attributed to science is that it should have no dogma unless the 'search for truth' be called 'dogma.' The hallmark of science is that it values what can be measured and that measurements should be capable of being repeated by others under the same conditions and yield the same results.

This is completely different and is in direct opposition to religious dogmas that declare something is so because it is so; 'truth' by proclamation. Religious dogmas exist independently of objective truth. To equate a specific religious claim or dogma, with the idea that truth should be discovered by objective means instead of accepting what has traditionally been called 'truth' turns the definition of dogma on its head.

Yes, that is the correct view of dogma, just as you spoke.

And the issue is not whether there is such a thing as true dogma, but learning the differences between valid and invalid dogma.

And as people tend to be protective of their accepted dogma it is difficult to sort between the valid and the invalid.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 32 by Danmark]

I myself would disagree about dogma in science, but will say depending on field of study. Those based on experiment and calculations absolutely have no dogma, but comparative sciences such as social sciences are authority based in large. Although these dogma's change as new evidence is found against accepted theories. One such example is the land bridge migration of humans into north america. Although I will probably receive some flack yet I myself am Native American(Cree), yes there is some evidence to support this. The migratory pattern of oldest sites are coastal and not in the arctic range. There is more evidence for coastal migration than the land bridge. I will also add first people as of current finds were in fact Melanesian not Mongoloid and findings are pushing back dates further and further. Yet it is wide spread dogma from authority figures of Clovis first, and many get ridiculed from their contemporaries for bringing fourth new evidence that does not support these theories.

Here are some article and evidence for what I am saying.
http://www.academia.edu/1078392/The_Roc ... a_Capivara

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 104010.htm

http://archive.archaeology.org/0605/abs ... erica.html

http://www.nature.com/news/ancient-migr ... ca-1.10562

I do not think this is new now, but I have received much criticisms before when I postulated Olmec Heads were representation of Melanesian/Aborigines and that these were the first people's of the America's. This is one such example of a dogma in a field of science yet since too much evidence against the authority of this Clovis first theory, now this dogma is slowly changing. i should also add that as per current genetic research Native Americans closest genetic relatives were Eurasian from upper Siberia.

[r~]

It is widely accepted that religion is more prone to dogma and science authority most strenuously denies that the scientific method might be construed to propagate dogma as long and far as possible. And ban those that know better.
rwjefferson. et al

New knowledge that is knowledge contrary to a comfortable way of thinking can be threatening to people and they sometimes react violently to it.
david. et carl. ann al

It is easy to see that religion is rife with dogma. Look at any other religion. It seems to me dogma is more insidious where existence is denied.

peace
ron

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 34 by Excubis]

There is one very simple difference and that difference is huge.
Religious dogma cannot be tested. Religious claims cannot be falsified.

Scientific 'dogma' can be tested and falsified.

Religious dogma is forever.

Scientific dogma [and I'm not at all agreeing 'dogma' even applies] only lasts until the tested. The dogma or theory about the geocentric universe died as soon as better testing was applied. The claim that the Earth is flat perished upon more careful examination.

Scientific 'dogma' is only 'insidious' when viewed by the amateur, the non scientist, or the advocate of some superstition or religious belief who only uses some outdated or misconstrued 'claim of science' as 'scientific dogma' to justify some religious belief. Creationists, old Earthers as well as YEC [and especially YEC'rs] are notorious for employing this tactic, using their version of "science" to support their religious claims. It is a great error to allow their misuse and abuse, or rather their perversion of science to be used to coin the phrase "scientific dogma."

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 36 by Danmark]

Agree and also agree that there is not scientific dogma but personal dogma represented by individuals in science, such as some creationist scientists and others as well. We all have dogma and as a scientist the method is suppose to be the impartial control and subsequent publication and review of interpretation on data that shows and filters out personal dogma from conclusions, to give value to findings.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 35 by r~]

Well knowledge in science is testable by anyone with enough understanding and capabilities to test. A spiritual belief is felt individually and is not testable by any other means. Yes those who feel the same congregate together therefore lending value to belief by numbers not by knowledge since it is not testable outside of subsequent feeling. When we believe in something, we see it as truth since it is real for us personally because we feel it, yet for those outside of our life the truth or feeling can and will be dramatically different to each person. Look at love and how we feel it, show it and how it is observed. When first in love we think and feel for the person we love quite often, we often sum up our existence based on this feeling of love for another. When an observer views one in love and attempts to validate being in love empirically they cannot because this is a personal feeling or experience. Now one could say we know love exists since majority have felt it but this is not scientific at all since not a testable physical attribute but a personal experience and religion has same dogma applied.

A personal experience or feeling is valid to that person only but may be shared with others who have had similar experience or feeling. Science is testable by all not just those who have shared common experience or feeling. A experiment is an observation not a personal experience or feeling, the 2 are entirely different mediums for knowledge. One is personal and then shared, other is observed, shared, and repeated by others outside of one's own dogma's. to say science is put off by new knowledge well no a person maybe but science as whole only looks for validity of knowledge or how data was obtained. Religious knowledge and scientific are by large completely different for basis of validity or accepted truth. This is not to say that personal ego stays completely out of the scientific fields or accepted knowledge, but science is based on a method for validity and as experiment, technology, and review occur these dogma's get weeded out.