Science is dogma (split from What is the Purpose of Life ?)

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Sebasfort said:

biology/chemistry/physics/DataTakenFromTheEnvironmentAkaObservation (the first three are dogmas

Really?

 

The astrophysicist Katie Mack said this recently:

Quote

SCIENTIST: I have an idea to explain this data
OTHER SCIENTISTS: Here are all the reasons you might be wrong
[DECADES OF ARGUMENTS]
MOST SCIENTISTS: Ok maybe it could work
SOMEONE ON YOUTUBE: The scientists didn’t consider they might be WRONG!
SCIENTISTS: 🙄

https://twitter.com/AstroKatie/status/1203322360826408960

 

[Sebasfort]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Really?

 

The astrophysicist Katie Mack said this recently:

Quote

SCIENTIST: I have an idea to explain this data
OTHER SCIENTISTS: Here are all the reasons you might be wrong
[DECADES OF ARGUMENTS]
MOST SCIENTISTS: Ok maybe it could work
SOMEONE ON YOUTUBE: The scientists didn’t consider they might be WRONG!
SCIENTISTS: 🙄

You just quoted an authority.

Science is a dogma that collects rational data and isn't the data itself. I haven't read and analyzed every scientific paper that exist. It would be irrational to always assume |data in scientific papers = true|. The parenthesis isn't the main topic here and I shall provide no further information about it.

43 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

so your answer is?

The answer diverges, you are asking me where it converges. Would you try to find a finite limit to the infinite sequence of the partial sums of a divergent series? (calculus)

[swansont]

52 minutes ago, Sebasfort said:

You just quoted an authority.

It's OK to do that. Sometimes someone else says things more succinctly than you can do yourself. The argument was not presented as "Dr. Mack said it so it's true." 

Is the comment wrong? If so, how? Do scientists not critique theories? Do they not modify them as a result? 

Doesn't that trivially show that science is not dogma?

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Sebasfort said:

It would be irrational to always assume |data in scientific papers = true|.

Of course it would. No one does. Science has been defined as the art of being creatively wrong. 

Mans I’m not convinced science has much to do with “truth”

1 hour ago, Sebasfort said:

You just quoted an authority.

Yes, someone who knows how science works. And is able to summarise it succinctly. 

1 hour ago, Sebasfort said:

Science is a dogma that collects rational data and isn't the data itself.

You either don’t know what the word “dogma” means or you don’t know how science works. Or maybe both. 

 

[koti]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

You either don’t know what the word “dogma” means or you don’t know how science works. Or maybe both. 

I suspect that he doesn't know the meaning of the word dogma. If he did, he would realise that science is the exact opposite of the concept of dogmas. 

[Ken Fabian]

2 hours ago, Sebasfort said:

It would be irrational to always assume |data in scientific papers = true|.

Not as irrational as assuming data in science papers = false.

 

2 hours ago, Sebasfort said:

You just quoted an authority.

Unless you are a scientist working in the field of study in question - ie you are an authority yourself - the assumption that people who study something know better than you is an excellent one and both logical and reasonable.

Real scientific sceptics say "I don't know". They don't say no-one else knows; if they don't know then it would be illogical for them to assume that what others know is false! It is fake sceptics that argue that anything they do not, cannot or choose not to understand is wrong until and unless they are personally convinced.

[Sebasfort]

22 minutes ago, koti said:

I suspect that he doesn't know the meaning of the word dogma. If he did, he would realise that science is the exact opposite of the concept of dogmas. 

The topic had nothing to do with this and I initially did not want to get dragged into this intellectually dishonest debate but here I am discussing stupid definitions. I'm doing you a favor by communicating to you and I'm very careful with my choice of words. You might have felt like I was diminishing you by saying science is a dogma on a science forum. But the thing is, I use Google definitions to communicate and I do not take in consideration the ''pejorativity'' of the words I use. Google |Dogma| : a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Google |principle| : a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning --> Science is a dogma which principle is the scientific method and there is presence of authority. If you all want to keep jumping into your primitive unproductive thinking behaviors then keep doing whatever makes you sleep at night. 01101100 01101111 01110011 01100101 01110010 01110011

[koti]

10 minutes ago, Sebasfort said:

The topic had nothing to do with this and I initially did not want to get dragged into this intellectually dishonest debate but here I am discussing stupid definitions. I'm doing you a favor by communicating to you and I'm very careful with my choice of words. You might have felt like I was diminishing you by saying science is a dogma on a science forum. But the thing is, I use Google definitions to communicate and I do not take in consideration the ''pejorativity'' of the words I use. Google |Dogma| : a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Google |principle| : a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning --> Science is a dogma which principle is the scientific method and there is presence of authority. If you all want to keep jumping into your primitive unproductive thinking behaviors then keep doing whatever makes you sleep at night. 01101100 01101111 01110011 01100101 01110010 01110011

It’s quite interesting how lack of understanding of basic concepts and logic goes in pair with being a complete dick. Then again we have Dunning-Kruger. 

[Sebasfort]

2 minutes ago, koti said:

It’s quite interesting how lack of understanding of basic concepts and logic goes in pair with being a complete dick. Then again we have Dunning-Kruger. 

You wish I cared about you dodging my post by throwing ad hominem at me in order to feel more comfortable about yourself. You never ever considered the possibility that I could be right, you just followed the crowd without even looking at the definition of dogma. I'm the dick? You are the one being dishonest : you jumped into a topic against me that was generated from a parenthesis that was meant to be ignored if not understood.

[koti]

24 minutes ago, Sebasfort said:

You wish I cared about you dodging my post by throwing ad hominem at me in order to feel more comfortable about yourself. You never ever considered the possibility that I could be right, you just followed the crowd without even looking at the definition of dogma. I'm the dick? You are the one being dishonest : you jumped into a topic against me that was generated from a parenthesis that was meant to be ignored if not understood.

I don’t have to check the definition of the word „dogma” as I know it. You checked it and you still fail to understand what it means. Or maybe as Strange noted you don’t know what science is. I called you a dick after you said you are doing me a favour by communicating to me. I’m doing you a favour by treating you so lightly, start showing some respect or gtfo. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Sebasfort said:

Google |Dogma| : a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

3 elements: Principles, authority, incontrovertibly true

1 hour ago, Sebasfort said:

--> Science is a dogma which principle is the scientific method and there is presence of authority. If you all want to keep jumping into your primitive unproductive thinking behaviors then keep doing whatever makes you sleep at night. 01101100 01101111 01110011 01100101 01110010 01110011

Principles, authority

See what’s missing?

[Ghideon]

6 hours ago, Sebasfort said:

Communication/languages are not immune to the conception of ideas that can't be observed.

Can you explain what and idea that can't be observed is? Compared to an idea that can be observed?

2 hours ago, Sebasfort said:

01101100 01101111 01110011 01100101 01110010 01110011

Which ones? Those not knowing what science is or those not knowing binary ascii? Others? 

Edited December 7, 2019 by Ghideon
missed the binary message

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Sebasfort said:

Google |Dogma| : a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

1. There is no "authority" in science 

2. There is nothing incontrovertible in science

3. There is no "truth" in science (or, at least, only provisional truth)

 

1 hour ago, Sebasfort said:

you jumped into a topic against me that was generated from a parenthesis that was meant to be ignored if not understood.

If it was meant to be ignored, you shouldn't have said it. (And it was understood. It is just wrong.)

1 hour ago, Sebasfort said:

You never ever considered the possibility that I could be right,

We have to go by the evidence of what you say.

So, no.

[koti]

2 hours ago, Sebasfort said:

01101100 01101111 01110011 01100101 01110010 01110011

You managed to get even that wrong, 

01101100 00110000 00110000 01110011 00110011 00110100

 

[Markus Hanke]

8 hours ago, Sebasfort said:

I'm doing you a favor by communicating to you and I'm very careful with my choice of words.

As a silent reader not actively involved in this thread, allow me to offer an observation. Your initial post had one or two points in it that are relevant and worthwhile, but unfortunately your tone and general presence here comes across as arrogant and condescending, You made at least one good point (and some not so good ones), but you failed to communicate them in a proper manner.

Please take this as constructive criticism, i.e. an opportunity for growth.

[Sebasfort]

19 hours ago, swansont said:

20 hours ago, Sebasfort said:

Google |Dogma| : a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

3 elements: Principles, authority, incontrovertibly true

Quote

--> Science is a dogma which principle is the scientific method and there is presence of authority. If you all want to keep jumping into your primitive unproductive thinking behaviors then keep doing whatever makes you sleep at night. 01101100 01101111 01110011 01100101 01110010 01110011

Principles, authority

See what’s missing?

All I see is the flawed logic of an hypobrain organism that probably adapted to a low energy environment surrounded by fecal matter. I thought that the notion of action and adjective attribution to objects would be clear to anyone that reads/writes on a daily basis yet you surprised me with this fascinating ability of yours to be clueless about pretty much everything you deal with on a daily basis. Your sole purpose is to subconsciously spit information you've taken somewhere else and seek other mammals' approval. You don't know how to think and you represent every single reasons why I choose to dissociate myself from the word scientist and instead go for the ''I analyze data'' description of myself. People that are on their knees like you and worship great scientists see nothing else but dust on the ground.

You wrote ''3 elements: Principles, authority, incontrovertibly true  | Principles, authority See what’s missing?'''

Implying that principle had nothing to do with incontrovertibly true when in fact the definition was about incontrovertibly true principles laid down by an authority :

Google |Dogma| : a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

2 elements : Incontrovertibly true principles -> laid down by an authority

Science is based on axioms that form the scientific method and those axioms don't come from nowhere they (were made) are supported and spread across the scientific community which itself is an authority.

Google |Authority| : 3. the power to influence others, especially because of one's commanding manner or one's recognized knowledge about something.a person with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject; an expert.

19 hours ago, koti said:

I don’t have to check the definition of the word „dogma” as I know it

So doing research about the subject of a debate before stepping in it is not the way it works for you... Fascinating

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, Sebasfort said:

All I see is the flawed logic of an hypobrain organism that probably adapted to a low energy environment surrounded by fecal matter.

It's a shame that debate has not moved beyond petty insults and toilet humor.

[Phi for All]

35 minutes ago, Sebasfort said:

All I see is the flawed logic of an hypobrain organism that probably adapted to a low energy environment surrounded by fecal matter.

!

Moderator Note

The purpose of this forum is to encourage civil discussions about science, in an environment that facilitates the distribution of knowledge and the reduction of ignorance and bias. Unfortunately, your posts are inconsistent with that purpose. We wish you well elsewhere this holiday season.