Dogma v Scientific thought

[wigglieverse]

Everone knows what dogma is. It's stuff no-one wants to run over. Has anyone not met, in their studies, any dogmatic types? The professor who tries to tell you, in no condescending way, of course (usually they fail miserably at both) that, you know, it might just be better for you, and everyone, if you took your addled ideas and left the big kids to it.

 

Dogmatism, as in some belief that the idea is to construct restrictions, and constraints, on things like language and meaning; a canon must be constructed and adhered to strictly -trespassers or blatant abusers of such 'rules' and 'regulations' will be cast out the airlock.

 

Education is rife with it: restrictors and constrainers are everywhere.

Education should be interesting, even enjoyable, we seem to try to go out of out way to make it not so.

 

Learning is about experience and ideas. Ideas are about communication.

Accusing someone of being childish for not believing without question someone who has laid claim to being "a Scientist", looks childish.

 

It happens in "science" forums all over the web. Who are these priests of dogma and talismanic worship (of their degrees and "qualifications")? The new authorities of "correct-speak", and "new-think"? Should we be careful not to step in any of their doo-doo?

[Buffy]

Trying to provoke a response again Mr. wigglie? How *pleasant*....

 

When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less, :hihi:

Buffy

[wigglieverse]

" When we use a word, it means [just] what we choose it to mean! "

 

What about a word like: "seriously", or "really", or "concern"?

In other "words":

 

are you serious about this choice?

 

do you really know what the "concept" of: dogma or: "dogmatic", or say: "arbitrary" is?

 

are you concerned about other's dogma?

 

do you seriously believe I really concern myself with whether you do or not?

 

are you serious about communication or any concerns of other researchers into anthropological behaviour of people? (at this, or any other site)?

[Buffy]

That's what I thought....

 

Help! Help! I'm being repressed! :hihi:

Buffy

[freeztar]

ummmmm...

 

Wigglie, perhaps being a bit more congenial would suit yourself better.

 

But perhaps once a troll, always a troll...

I'd love for you to prove me wrong. :winter_brr:

[wigglieverse]

"...once a troll, always a troll..."

 

Yeh, but I can say whatever I like, any arbitrary thing whatsoever.

The world, however, will continue to spin about its axis.

I might not (and you might not), be here at some future to see if it is still spinning.

I might not be around for as long as I realise, nor anyone else, if you see (or not) my point.

Nothing really matters, anyone can see. Nothing really matters, ...(at least not) to me. Interesting quote though.

[CraigD]

Although the term “dogma”, like many non-technical terms, has many meanings, I think the appropriate one in the context of this thread is “a claim one is not permitted to dispute”. As orthodox science requires that all claims be falsifiable, dogma is incompatible with it – that is incompatible with “the scientific method”.

 

Paradoxically, the principle that all scientific claims must be falsifiable may itself be considered dogma. Although at first glance this appears something of an epemedian paradox (akin to ascribing a truth value to the statement “this statement is false”), I don’t think it’s actually profound – though I suspect arguing this would be difficult, and not important to the main topic of this thread.

 

Although I’m confident that research and teaching scientists do on occasion (some more frequently than others) engage in the sort of dogmatic imposing of their opinions on subordinates and students wigglieverse decries in post #1, I don’t think such inappropriate conduct is the norm – though my opinion is of limited value, as I don’t have much experience in scientific research and teaching.

 

I’ve often seen the charge of being dogmatic leveled against arguments of the form “your claim is refuted by a well-known but complicated explanation – see the following reference”. Although I’ve experienced the disingenuous use of arguments of this form where the argument was essentially a bluff made in the hope that I would accept a claim without checking the offered reference, this has not usually been the case.

It happens in "science" forums all over the web. Who are these priests of dogma and talismanic worship (of their degrees and "qualifications")? The new authorities of "correct-speak", and "new-think"? Should we be careful not to step in any of their doo-doo?

Wiggliverse, can you provide reference to specific instances of theses dogmatic happenings? As I’ve described above, I think the legitimacy of scientific arguments varies from cases to case. I think it’s better – more edifying, enlightening, and yea, entertaining - to consider specific instances, rather than speak in generalities.

[wigglieverse]

I guess it depends where you go and who or what you ask

(I have been arbitrarily denied access, to one or two "tea-parties", supposedly thinking and serious people, for no good reason I could see)

but should it matter -to me I mean? Or to anyone, who gets told "you must say it like this", or "you can't say that"; "why can't I?" is what normally occurs to me...

Specific examples getting themselves displayed here would be scatalogical, at best. I've seen guys with ideas that the "establishment" decides are "too speculative", get banned, what does this term mean? Who made it up? And what did they think it would be useful for? I cannot see what this could possibly be.

All science is speculative, no-one should start to believe there's a brake handle somewhere, much less that they might put their hand on it.

 

Then there are the kiddies who haven't learned how to read properly yet, accusing you of claiming a mysterious 'purpose' bestowed by an equally mysterious being upon all forms of life, and "trolling", whatever that might be, when you include the word "purposive", in a thread starter. Then they tell the teacher, and she agrees!?!

[jedaisoul]

Dogmatism, as in some belief that the idea is to construct restrictions, and constraints, on things like language and meaning

Dogma, according to Wikipedia is "doctrine... thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from". You seem to define dogma as putting constraints on language and meaning. That's a very different definition.

 

Learning is about experience and ideas. Ideas are about communication.

I would suggest that communication is generally facilitated by using agreed, standard, definitions for words. The exceptions are when:

a) You are expressing a novel idea for which there is no agreed word or phrase.

:lol: You wish to propose a meaning which you believe is more appropriate in the context.

c) The meaning of the word is the subject of the discussion. E.g. Someome started a thread "What is Truth?", and I proposed a definition very different from "truth = reality".

 

So observing restrictions on the meanings you associate with specific words is generally beneficial. It facilitates a wider discussion of ideas. It has nothing to do with doctrine, which seeks to limit the discussion of ideas.

[C1ay]

I guess it depends where you go and who or what you ask

(I have been arbitrarily denied access, to one or two "tea-parties", supposedly thinking and serious people, for no good reason I could see)

but should it matter -to me I mean? Or to anyone, who gets told "you must say it like this", or "you can't say that"; "why can't I?" is what normally occurs to me...

 

Consider something else for example, like "perpetual motion". This is a phenomenon that scientists know cannot be accomplished and yet, posters come by here in a never ending stream to posit their idea for yet another perpetual motion machine. We tire of responding to the same questions over and over and over ad nauseum. Sooner or later we get weary of dealing with this in our community and suspend those that are too lazy to look up the answers that have been provided over and over and over again and again. If they want to understand why perpetual motion doesn't work then they need to go take some physics classes instead of badgering us with more "prove this" and "prove that" when they don't understand the physics to begin with.

 

We have a forum here for science minded individuals to have discussions with other like minded individuals. Not to endlessly respond to inquiries from passersby that simply want to disagree and call for proof over and over again while ignoring the proof that has already been presented. We are not a school or assembly of teachers here for the purpose of educating an endless stream of non-science minded individuals.

 

In the end this is our forum and our community and we make the rules. If we decide "you must say it like this", or "you can't say that" then that is our choice and those that don't like it can go build their own forum and implement whatever rules they want.

[Eclogite]

Everone knows what dogma is. It's stuff no-one wants to run over.

Really? I don't think so. I run over dogma every day at my work. When I am in full flow in my teaching role I run over dogma every minute. I take it and I rip it into tiny pieces and cast it into the wind of disdain.:( I relish every opportunity to dismantle and pulverise dogma, wherever and whenever it appears. Perhaps you are associating with the wrong kind of people.

The professor who tries to tell you, in no condescending way, of course (usually they fail miserably at both) that, you know, it might just be better for you, and everyone, if you took your addled ideas and left the big kids to it.

I have no idea which particular concepts you are speaking of. CraigD has given an apposite example of perpetual motion machines. I a student approaches his professor with a design for a perpetual motion machine and the professor responds by inviting him to 'take his addled ideas elsewhere' then this is not the application of dogma. This is the application of common sense and scientific principle. Do you disagree?

 

Education is rife with it: restrictors and constrainers are everywhere.

And rightly so, but that has nothing to do with dogma. Did you learn to read by being handed the complete works of Shakespeare? Did you receive your basic education in evolution by being asked to read all 1200 + pages of Gould's magnum opus? I suspect not. We begin with the simple and often simplistic rules and guidelines and build towards an understanding of these (that you foolishly seem to believe are dogma) and from that foundation expand to an appreciation of the subtleties and complexities of the 'real world'.

 

Guess what. This works, unless you happen to be too lazy, too irreverent, too arrogant, to understand the need for such a methodical approach.

Education should be interesting, even enjoyable, we seem to try to go out of out way to make it not so.

Breaking news. Not all teachers are good teachers. Hallelujah!:doh:

Accusing someone of being childish for not believing without question someone who has laid claim to being "a Scientist", looks childish.

Yes it does. There are individuals to be found on all forums who do rely on a dogmatic view of science. Ignore them. Problem solved. Next please.

[wigglieverse]

There are individuals to be found on all forums who do rely on a dogmatic view of science. Ignore them. Problem solved.

Thank you, and I hope you are able to appreciate also the humor evident in our "fight" against the dark side:

I relish every opportunity to dismantle and pulverise dogma, wherever and whenever it appears.

 

..................................................

 

This is the application of common sense and scientific principle. Do you disagree?

implication: you're not going to get away with having a dogma around this guy! He's pretty dog-gone dogmatic about being anti-dogma -no dogmas allowed in class!

We begin with the simple and often simplistic rules and guidelines and build towards an understanding of these. Not all teachers are good teachers.

implication: some who think they are teachers aren't too good at communicating ideas "towards an understanding", of some subject or topic

[wigglieverse]

Note: ignoring inanity and pointless quibbles can be useful in forums like this. I guess some of us imagine that we are, in fact, engaged in conversation (which kind of describes what a forum like this is like), and forget about this simple notion: ignoring idiotic comments, being called girly names, and other childishness, is a valid option.

 

I guess that particular notion should be extended to paying attention to ideas posted by someone who appears to have some misconception.

 

I've learned that people really don't like to be told they don't understand something (particularly when they've attained some qualification); so in the interests of peace of mind (rather than trying to uncover the source of their, or possibly your own misunderstanding) it's best to ignore it. Discussion of scientific ideas is just too fraught with difficulty (especially in forums that purport to be for this purpose) --stick to textbooks, lad.

 

Posting a query, being told you're up the creek, then seeing absolutely nothing relevant to demonstrate that you are, in fact, up some creek, does get a little annoying. Perhaps I should review my opinion of the usefulness of forums like this; when it comes to attempting to ask anything, there isn't anyone that responds with anything other than perplexity, generally.

 

This implies that knowledgeable people believe they have better things to do than post drek on forums like this.

 

Therefore, if there's a choice here, it might be to stay away from 'hard' science, because 'scientists' tend to have very fixed, dogmatic views. Advice to self: stick to the pseudo stuff and the religious threads, stay out of trouble.

[HydrogenBond]

Dogma don't appear overnight. They are usually the result of a lot of thought and debate, until the debate is felt to be majority settled. For example, the Catholic dogma of the Assumption of the Virgin took almost 2000 years to be ironed out. What people get is the bottom line without the attached data base. Dogma are often there for convenience. If one is not satisfied, go to the stacks and read all the opinions. They were already considered.

 

Science has it own dogmas. The first one that comes to mind is the iron core of the earth. This is impossible to directly prove with solid data. But on the other hand, it too has been pondered and worked for decades. The dogma is the bottom line that rarely includes all the thinking behind it. In light of nobody being able to directly prove this, the debate had to shift away from solid proof, into the realm of the best possible guesses.

 

Guess is an operative word when it comes to dogma. The reason dogma become so strict, is this is the best way to disguise the guess factor. It is sort of an overcompensation to hide the subtle lingering doubt. The goal is to get people to accept the one liner and not think too deep. If we keep it shallow, nobody will ever bring up the fact the "emperor is naked".

 

But on the other hand, if we had to wait for solid proof before we could publish the composition of the earth's core, many areas of science would have to sit idle, waiting for this proof, before going forward. After careful deliberation and for forward progress the dogma-guess is instituted, allowing other thinking to more forward. The hope is the new data will make a circle and finally help solve the mystery. But until then it is carved in stone and protected by guardians, who fanaticism stems from fear.

 

There is a subtle reason for this. Once a dogma is made and thinking begins to push forward, using the dogma as a cornerstone, if one tampers with the cornerstone, an entire house of cards can come tumbling down. There will come a time, when the stone can be remove and house will stand, but while under construction, the house is very vulnerable to earthquakes.