2 ms·

I've seen plenty of cases (in published books), related by real people, in which scientists, or academic people, face to face with raw data about a phenomenon,

I've seen plenty of cases (in published books), related by real people, in which scientists, or academic people, face to face with raw data about a phenomenon, data that didn't make sense given what they learned, chose to ignore the data, and walk away without investigating it further. This goes contrary to what Science represents. It happens all the time. That's what I was talking about in my original post that's all. Of course it's not the absolute norm for all Scientific Community but it's abundant. This is pure dogmatism. Dogmatism originates from the same state of mind, which is Fear.

eesmith 7y ago
Sure. People are people, and scientists can and often are resistant to change. (BTW, I do dislike your use of the reified term "Science". That's a mythical pedestal which nobody can stand on.) You write "Of course it's not the absolute norm for all Scientific Community but it's abundant". You then also mean that dogma is also not the absolute norm for religions, but it's abundant, right? Which leads us to a quagmire, since dogma, formally speaking, "is an official system of principles or doctrines of a religion." (Quoting Wikipedia.) Though you mean something more like "it is applied to some strong belief whose adherents are not willing to discuss it rationally." (Same Wikipedia entry.) I gave a list of several scientific principles which were thought to be correct, then demonstrated to be incorrect, and where there are now few adherents. I could easily list more. What are the equivalents in religion to, say, the Planck's introduction of quantum mechanics to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe problem?
- rafaelvasco 7y ago
  Science: Merely an habit of mine of writing things upper case. Well, you're overthinking, really. I understand. People tend to to that a lot this days. Terms, meanings etc, so many things. I only said in my original post that the resistance to change and thinking outside of the norm is as prevalent in science as is in religion. I'm not attacking or defending anything really. They're human, institutions, and so they're fallible;
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Perhaps the charge can be reversed, and you are underthinking? I was calling you out for your both-siderism. I still am. Two switch out of having only two camps, I pose this variants: Is resistance to change and thinking outside of the norm as prevalent in physics as it is in phrenology? I think empirical evidence shows that phrenology - "measuring the contour of the skull can predict personality traits" to quote Wikipedia - is pure bunkum. Therefore, I think that anyone who holds that opinion does so from dogmatic faith. But your both-siderism suggests that phrenologists are no more dogmatic than physicists. Which I disagree with - see my earlier examples where physicists rejected earlier widely-held views given evidence to the contrary. My conclusion is that different institutions have different levels of dogmatism, so a claim of equivalence cannot easily be made without some sort of basis for the claim. As another example, I think that as an institution evolutionary psychology has a higher level of dogmatism than solid state physics, and as evidence I can point to articles like "Is Evolutionary Psychology Possible?" by Subrena E. Smith, doi:10.1007/s13752-019-00336-4 and the lack of corresponding articles for solid state physics.
    - rafaelvasco 7y ago
      Well, shall we go our separate ways in our way of thinking then. Neither I or you are wrong. I'm just seeing the forest and you the tree.

eesmith 7y ago

Sure. People are people, and scientists can and often are resistant to change. (BTW, I do dislike your use of the reified term "Science". That's a mythical pedestal which nobody can stand on.) You write "Of course it's not the absolute norm for all Scientific Community but it's abundant". You then also mean that dogma is also not the absolute norm for religions, but it's abundant, right? Which leads us to a quagmire, since dogma, formally speaking, "is an official system of principles or doctrines of a religion." (Quoting Wikipedia.) Though you mean something more like "it is applied to some strong belief whose adherents are not willing to discuss it rationally." (Same Wikipedia entry.) I gave a list of several scientific principles which were thought to be correct, then demonstrated to be incorrect, and where there are now few adherents. I could easily list more. What are the equivalents in religion to, say, the Planck's introduction of quantum mechanics to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe problem?

rafaelvasco 7y ago
Science: Merely an habit of mine of writing things upper case. Well, you're overthinking, really. I understand. People tend to to that a lot this days. Terms, meanings etc, so many things. I only said in my original post that the resistance to change and thinking outside of the norm is as prevalent in science as is in religion. I'm not attacking or defending anything really. They're human, institutions, and so they're fallible;
- eesmith 7y ago
  Perhaps the charge can be reversed, and you are underthinking? I was calling you out for your both-siderism. I still am. Two switch out of having only two camps, I pose this variants: Is resistance to change and thinking outside of the norm as prevalent in physics as it is in phrenology? I think empirical evidence shows that phrenology - "measuring the contour of the skull can predict personality traits" to quote Wikipedia - is pure bunkum. Therefore, I think that anyone who holds that opinion does so from dogmatic faith. But your both-siderism suggests that phrenologists are no more dogmatic than physicists. Which I disagree with - see my earlier examples where physicists rejected earlier widely-held views given evidence to the contrary. My conclusion is that different institutions have different levels of dogmatism, so a claim of equivalence cannot easily be made without some sort of basis for the claim. As another example, I think that as an institution evolutionary psychology has a higher level of dogmatism than solid state physics, and as evidence I can point to articles like "Is Evolutionary Psychology Possible?" by Subrena E. Smith, doi:10.1007/s13752-019-00336-4 and the lack of corresponding articles for solid state physics.
  - rafaelvasco 7y ago
    Well, shall we go our separate ways in our way of thinking then. Neither I or you are wrong. I'm just seeing the forest and you the tree.