4 ms·

What you are describing is simply human fallibility. There is no dogma in science. Science does not mandate that anything be set in stone, never to be questione

What you are describing is simply human fallibility. There is no dogma in science. Science does not mandate that anything be set in stone, never to be questioned, doubted or disputed. And when the "old guard" is made irrelevant, that happens through the scientific method itself.

sophacles 14y ago
I'm sorry, but "this is the way it is, because it is the way it is no matter what you say" is dogma, whether on a short or long timescale. Just because it doesn't stick for hundreds of years in a row doesn't change that it is dogma for a generation or two. If it affects funding despite evidence, and what papers get published even if there is good evidence at odds with the model, how is it not dogma? Does changing the label of the same set of actions make it better somehow? Also, there is a bit of irony in the statement "there is no dogma in science" as it is a fairly dogmatic statement :)
- yannickt 14y ago
  What I mean is there are no articles of faith in science. There is no equivalent of "Jesus was born of a virgin". Science doesn't tell you that "E=MC2" is never to be questioned. The phenomenon you describe exists, but I don't think you will find justification for it in a scientific text. But you will find justification for religious dogma in the religious texts themselves.
  - sophacles 14y ago
    The articles of faith can be looked at as axioms of the worldview. For instance "bible = word of god/statement of truth" is a basic axiom. Similarly in science you do get certain axioms: * occam's razor * reductionist analysis is the best path to truth * this new theory is more elegant even though it currently unanswers certain questions. They are axioms without empirical proof, that are argued fairly strongly fairly regularly. NOTE: I don't disagree with them, just pointing out that there are non-empirical axioms that are fairly dogmatically taught and followed. One frequently under fire is reductionism, particularly in medicine and other biological areas.
    - yannickt 14y ago
      The difference is that science doesn't tell you to dogmatically follow axioms per se. For example, the constancy of the speed of light is an axiom of Einstein's theory of relativity. Evidence that disproves said constancy would eventually lead to revising the theory, just as Newton's axioms were eventually replaced by Einstein's relativity. That's not dogmatic following. On the other hand, the virgin birth of Jesus (for example) is a dogma of Christianity. From what we know about our world, a virgin birth is not possible, not with the technology that was available at the time the Bible was written. Christians still accept this tenet of Christianity at face value, despite the ample evidence against it (evidence they would never ignore in other aspects of their lives). That's dogmatic following.
      - sophacles 14y ago
        It seems like you are engaging in goalpost moving and/or strawmanning here. I explicitly listed non-empirical axioms about the method, and discussed some examples. You are replying with an example of empirical axiom as if it is the same thing. I never denied nor tried to refute that there are many empirical axioms associated with science. I only stated that there are also a priori axioms which are structurally dogma. Please stop changing the subject.
        yannickt 14y ago
        I misrepresented your argument, and I apologize for it.
    - Retric 14y ago
      Occam's razor it's simply a way to compare two theory's with IDENTICAL results. AKA for all test data A and B produce the same results however A takes 10 days on a supercomputer to compute and B can be done by hand, I will go with B. It also has a strong theoretical basis. Add enough epicycles and you can smooth out any irregularity's. But, over fit your data and you lose predictive capability. PS: Preferring the more complex theory is unworkable, because E=mc^2+(10^(-900))m is going to give the same results for any test you could actually carry out. Having no preference has the same basic limitation.

sophacles 14y ago

I'm sorry, but "this is the way it is, because it is the way it is no matter what you say" is dogma, whether on a short or long timescale. Just because it doesn't stick for hundreds of years in a row doesn't change that it is dogma for a generation or two. If it affects funding despite evidence, and what papers get published even if there is good evidence at odds with the model, how is it not dogma? Does changing the label of the same set of actions make it better somehow? Also, there is a bit of irony in the statement "there is no dogma in science" as it is a fairly dogmatic statement :)

yannickt 14y ago
What I mean is there are no articles of faith in science. There is no equivalent of "Jesus was born of a virgin". Science doesn't tell you that "E=MC2" is never to be questioned. The phenomenon you describe exists, but I don't think you will find justification for it in a scientific text. But you will find justification for religious dogma in the religious texts themselves.
- sophacles 14y ago
  The articles of faith can be looked at as axioms of the worldview. For instance "bible = word of god/statement of truth" is a basic axiom. Similarly in science you do get certain axioms: * occam's razor * reductionist analysis is the best path to truth * this new theory is more elegant even though it currently unanswers certain questions. They are axioms without empirical proof, that are argued fairly strongly fairly regularly. NOTE: I don't disagree with them, just pointing out that there are non-empirical axioms that are fairly dogmatically taught and followed. One frequently under fire is reductionism, particularly in medicine and other biological areas.
  - yannickt 14y ago
    The difference is that science doesn't tell you to dogmatically follow axioms per se. For example, the constancy of the speed of light is an axiom of Einstein's theory of relativity. Evidence that disproves said constancy would eventually lead to revising the theory, just as Newton's axioms were eventually replaced by Einstein's relativity. That's not dogmatic following. On the other hand, the virgin birth of Jesus (for example) is a dogma of Christianity. From what we know about our world, a virgin birth is not possible, not with the technology that was available at the time the Bible was written. Christians still accept this tenet of Christianity at face value, despite the ample evidence against it (evidence they would never ignore in other aspects of their lives). That's dogmatic following.
    - sophacles 14y ago
      It seems like you are engaging in goalpost moving and/or strawmanning here. I explicitly listed non-empirical axioms about the method, and discussed some examples. You are replying with an example of empirical axiom as if it is the same thing. I never denied nor tried to refute that there are many empirical axioms associated with science. I only stated that there are also a priori axioms which are structurally dogma. Please stop changing the subject.
      - yannickt 14y ago
        I misrepresented your argument, and I apologize for it.
  - Retric 14y ago
    Occam's razor it's simply a way to compare two theory's with IDENTICAL results. AKA for all test data A and B produce the same results however A takes 10 days on a supercomputer to compute and B can be done by hand, I will go with B. It also has a strong theoretical basis. Add enough epicycles and you can smooth out any irregularity's. But, over fit your data and you lose predictive capability. PS: Preferring the more complex theory is unworkable, because E=mc^2+(10^(-900))m is going to give the same results for any test you could actually carry out. Having no preference has the same basic limitation.