Can we remove the dogma from science?

[Revoltingest]

First of all, resistance isn't dogma.

I'm using "dogma" to indicate an entrenched belief, one which people defend against evidence
to the contrary. Think of at as people being "dogmatic" in the common non-technical sense.

Yes, any new ideas have to validate themselves through the accumulation of evidence. They also have to meet the objections from alternative theories. That isn't dogma: that is making sure evidence drives the discussion.

If you consider *that* to be a dogma, then no, science will not give that up.

Woo hoo.....detente!

 

[Polymath257]

I'm using "dogma" to indicate an entrenched belief, one which people defend against evidence to the contrary.

Woo hoo.....detente!

The problem is that there is often evidence to the contrary, no matter what your position. The question becomes the *quality* of that evidence, whether procedures are used that avoid errors (at least, from known factors), etc. Were mistakes made? Are the results repeatable?

Don't forget that the old viewpoints also have evidence to back them up. It may be realized that the *new* evidence outweighs the old, but that is not a given from the beginning. Usually, in science, the entrenched ideas are entrenched for a reason. But new data and new techniques can change minds.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem is that there is often evidence to the contrary, no matter what your position. The question becomes the *quality* of that evidence, whether procedures are used that avoid errors (at least, from known factors), etc. Were mistakes made? Are the results repeatable?

Don't forget that the old viewpoints also have evidence to back them up. It may be realized that the *new* evidence outweighs the old, but that is not a given from the beginning. Usually, in science, the entrenched ideas are entrenched for a reason. But new data and new techniques can change minds.

This is why science, despite being practiced by miserable imperfect humans,
does tend towards improved understanding. It's not about infallibility....just
increasing usefulness.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes.
"True" (only temporarily so) science has theories whose predictions have been verified.
"Untrue" science is theories whose predictions were falsified.

The same in religion.
"True" that has been described as such by God in the revealed book.
"Untrue" that has not been described/verified as such from the revealed book by God . Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I allow that some religions are so lacking in dogma as to be virtually without it.
But vast majority do dogma big time.

Quran does not have any dogma in it, it has only truth,facts and reality in it.
Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Science accepts improvements/changes to understanding when evidence is presented that contradicts previous understandings. Scientists call each other out.

Most religions, otoh, have a problem with changing their understand of reality. They start with their beliefs and try to find evidence that supports those beliefs, ignoring evidence to the contrary as unreliable.

The truthful Religion is also dynamic, solves the problems of the human society as it changes.
Should I quote from Quran in this connection? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The problem is when religion proclaims it self truthful, it is down hill from there. Scientists do not consider science truthful.

Science must be sometimes going the downhill, because it does not deal in truth, facts and reality it deals in the temporary phenomenon aspects of them.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

The truthful Religion is also dynamic, solves the problems of the human society as it changes.
Should I quote from Quran in this connection? Please
Regards

Quoting from the Quran wouldn't do any good to bolster your argument, as the Quran is the original belief. Do you have any examples of where Islamic beliefs welcomed changes that contradicted what is stated in the Quran?

 

[paarsurrey]

I like this range of definitions.....
the definition of dogma
It's far broader than what you use.

I have used it as "that which one thinks is true," but is not a fact or reality. Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Quoting from the Quran wouldn't do any good to bolster your argument, as the Quran is the original belief. Do you have any examples of where Islamic beliefs welcomed changes that contradicted what is stated in the Quran?

It is a dogma among many Muslims these days that Muhammad used compulsion and sword to convert people to Islam/Quran/Muhammad.

Example:
Muhammad never believed it. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has been sent by God to bring people on the original teachings of "peace" which is reasonable, rational and the original truthful teachings of Islam/Quran/Muhammad.

Regards

 

[Polymath257]

Quran does not have any dogma in it, it has only truth,facts and reality in it.
Please
Regards

Garbage. It has a lot of claims that are too vague to have a truth value, commands to do injustice and atrocities, and delusions concerning the existence of a supernatural. Of course, so do most religious books.

 

[Polymath257]

I have used it as "that which one thinks is true," but is not a fact or reality. Please
Regards

Then you are misusing the word. In that sense, you are promoting a dogma: that which you think is true, but is not fact or reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

The same in religion.
"True" that has been described as such by God in the revealed book.
"Untrue" that has not been described/verified as such from the revealed book by God . Please
Regards

Which book is "the" book of God?
How do they quantify the number of gods to be exactly one?
What experiments are conducted to test the predictions?

 

[Revoltingest]

I have used it as "that which one thinks is true," but is not a fact or reality. Please

That's OK with me.
I don't see science as "true".
It's only the understanding of the moment regarding the physical world.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science must be sometimes going the downhill, because it does not deal in truth, facts and reality it deals in the temporary phenomenon aspects of them.
Regards

As far as the witness of the history of science it has always advanced "uphill" to more knowledge concerning the nature of our physical existence. If this is your view, it is your 'albatross' of dogma hang around your neck like a lode stone.

The dogma of Islam is the layers of conflicting Sharia Law, and of course, any concept of peace in Islam lies in the wreakage of the Shiite/Sunni bloody cleavage of Islam, and the bloody conflicts with Judaism and Christianity.,

 

[leibowde84]

It is a dogma among many Muslims these days that Muhammad used compulsion and sword to convert people to Islam/Quran/Muhammad.

Example:
Muhammad never believed it. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has been sent by God to bring people on the original teachings of "peace" which is reasonable, rational and the original truthful teachings of Islam/Quran/Muhammad.

Regards

Doesn't the Quran say that there is no compulsion in religion though? Wouldn't that be the original teaching/belief?

 

[paarsurrey]

I have used it as "that which one thinks is true," but is not a fact or reality. Please
Regards

Just to add, please:

derived from the Greek 'dogma' (Greek δόγμα) meaning literally "that which one thinks is true" and 'dokein' (Greek dokeo) "to seem good."
Dogma - Wikipedia
Dogma - Wikipedia​

Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Then you are misusing the word. In that sense, you are promoting a dogma: that which you think is true, but is not fact or reality.

One may like to read #57 , please.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Garbage. It has a lot of claims that are too vague to have a truth value, commands to do injustice and atrocities, and delusions concerning the existence of a supernatural. Of course, so do most religious books.

Kindly just quote ONE such instance from Quran, if one has read Quran for oneself. Please don't quote a list from the websites that are opposed to Islam/Quran/Muhammad. One's own experience with Quran as an evidence, experiment in this exercise is not valid, as science does not cover this field of human life, being not physical or material.
Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Which book is "the" book of God?
How do they quantify the number of gods to be exactly one?
What experiments are conducted to test the predictions?

All the revealed books of all religions, provided the portions one quotes has not changed due to debris of time.
for instance Quran, which is letter to letter and dot to dot is not changed. Please
Regards