Science = Dogma in Many Ways

Science is a religion unto itself and as it advances it takes with it the trappings of faith: blind observance and dogma. Questioning the world, the original intention of the ideology, is no longer accepted as such a great virtue if it creates doubt that is beyond the realm of scientific analysis and is basically dead. Science has neared it's limit of understanding, and advancement with it's current beliefs, and methods.

A platform has evolved from which the science-religion operates and any deviation from this is scorned, ridiculed and lumped under the category of pseudo-science or quackery, to be cast aside as intellectual driftwood.

Freedom of the mind and the creativity of the brain is what produced the wonders of Science in the first place. We should not let this vanish. If it does Science will bury itself. Doctrines such as that of Evolution are taken now as scientific dogma. Therefore to survive as a driving force for our species science must expand its questioning, examine before condemning and not sit as a high priest, damning to oblivion ideas born from thought banks that cannot as of yet be so rigidly tested.

Scientists do not test or discuss their most elementary ideas. They are treated as self-evident. Analyzing evidence with logic, mathematics and experiments is itself based on assumptions. A scientist would argue, “Science is not a religious faith. Every idea in science is repeatedly tested for mathematical correctness and agreement with the evidence.” Scientists, however, do not question the elementary idea essential for scientific reasoning itself.

If everything in every respect is changing, philosophers could not make any true statements. We must just assume that there is something whose nature is changeless for there to be any truth. All matter is made of permanent building blocks. Even though substance can be destroyed, the attributes of matter are unchanging. This little assumption, however, has remained the first principle of Western science for eight hundred years. It is the essential dogma used by all scientists. A dogma is an inflexible principle that is unquestioned and accepted with authority.

A scientist would argue that matter cannot change since they measure constants. They claim that a cesium clock measures unchanging time. Yet no cesium atom in distant galaxies beats with the same rhythm as local cesium. Time is an idea in our head, not just a measurement. It is impossible to compare a present second with one from the past. It is also impossible to prove that time is a separate thing independent of the other characteristics of matter. Mass, charge, energy and gravity are not just measurements but ideas invented by people. It is impossible to prove that they are independent, unchanging entities apart from faith in the dogma of science.

Quantum evidence cries out that matter is not made of separate building blocks, but a dynamic relationship. If matter is a relationship, mathematical constants are not proof that matter does not change. Mathematical constants are found in things that change together, as long as the constants are defined in terms of the whole relationship. For example, the constant π is a constant because it is defined in terms of the essential nature of circles. If the radius changes, all measurements on a sphere change-together, so the ratio π remains constant. Most physical constants are defined in terms of the whole relationship, so their ratios could remain constant, while the underlying reality changes as a relation. You see, even the interpretation of mathematical constants requires one to dogmatically accept the assumption that matter is unchanging.

Scientists assume that atoms are perpetual motion machines. They mock people who believe in perpetual motion, yet they never question it in atoms. . Imagine that a scientist wants to measure the mass of an electron. Since an electron sometimes exhibits characteristics of “waves” and at other times “particles” this is not easy. Mathematically the “particle” seemingly can “jump” across space without passing through that space. If however, you imagine that it is a wave, it seems to be continuous and be extended in space.

In the case of some areas of science, a hypothesis cannot be shown to be repeatable for practical reasons of cost (in time, knowledge, or resources). Typically investigations into areas of science where repeatability is not an option are called "Soft Sciences" to differentiate their less accurate conclusions from those of the "hard sciences" where repeatability is an option. The reason that "Hard Sciences" yield more accurate "facts" is simple-- there is less of an opportunity for human interpretation of the evidence. Repeatability allows an experiment to be set up with observable factors that will either validate or invalidate a given interpretation.
Thus in cases where repeatability is unavailable, the validative power and credibility of the Scientific method is reduced, as a "see it- believe it" type of demonstration is impossible. In the absence of repeatability, a hypothesis must be validated by mathematics. The importance or relevance of certain factors becomes a matter of debate and interpretation because one can not simply set up an experiment to include or disclude those factors and observe the effect.
If one proclaims, teaches or assumes that Science is the ONLY METHOD for verifying information, that person is now applying a non-scientific and ideological statement of dogma. It is sheer dogma to proclaim a popular theory in a soft science is a "fact", especially when there are competing theories and interpretations.

Where any scientific conclusion is taught as fact or where science is held as the only method of information validation, dogma is in operation, not science. When such beliefs are used to justify the imposition of a particular interpretation of evidence on other minds by force because in the mind of the teacher they are "scientific facts" , it is tyranny.
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors."
J. Robert Oppenheimer, quoted in Life, October 10, 1949.
"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote.... Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."
Albert Abraham Michelson, speaking at the University of Chicago, 1894
"the great era of scientific discovery is over.... Further research may yield no more great revelations of revolutions, but only incremental, diminishing returns."
Science journalist John Horgan, in The End of Science (1997)
"It is ironical that, in the very field in which Science has claimed superiority to Theology, for example - in the abandoning of dogma and the granting of absolute freedom to criticism - the positions are now reversed. Science will not tolerate criticism of special relativity, while Theology talks freely about the death of God, religionless Christianity, and so on."
Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads, 1972
"What we see within the orthodoxy of AIDS is something more akin to an act of faith, a theology in an age when intolerant fundamentalism is rampant, where to question is to be heretical, and where to be heretical is be banished. "
Michael Tracey, AIDS and the making of the public mind
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Everything that science "knows," even the most mundane facts and long-established theories, is subject to reexamination as new information comes in."
Scientific American editorial, December 2002
"But so many scientists do support the theory that it must be true!"
That's not the case. In fact the exact opposite is true. Think about it for a second. If everything we thought was true was true, there would be no ne discoveries. Every major scientific advance came from somebody questioning the established theory, and turning out to be correct. Additionally, every time this has happened, the scientific establishment has resisted the new idea strenuously, despite the facts.
The latest example came yesterday, when the Nobel Prize for Medicine was announced.
What the article doesn't say is that Lauterbur ran into significant trouble even publishing the paper for which he just received the Prize. Nature rejected it as "not of significantly wide significance," before later changing their mind. On NPR's All Things Considered (audio link) Lauterbur says that "The preconceptions were so strong, that people could not only see the results, but be doing it themselves, and still not believe it."
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my point. Scientists are human. They become attached to their own theories, and will defend them when presented with new theories, even if the facts support the new theories. This is the fatal flaw behind all arguments which are based on authority instead of the facts. So don't tell me that x number of scientists believe this, so it must be true; if you want to convince me, you'd better have the facts to answer my questions.
This, in a nut-shell, is the state of scholarship in science studies. It carries a reasonable idea too far. Its skepticism regarding science is so radical that it does not allow any distinctions between science and superstition. No wonder it excites great passion among supporters and detractors. While science studies practitioners see themselves as brave iconoclasts, those of us who have criticized the field see it as promoting an 'anything goes' kind of relativism which helps no one.

Science is in a state of crisis. Where free inquiry, natural curiosity and open-minded discussion and consideration of new ideas should reign, a new orthodoxy has emerged. This 'new inquisition', as it has been called by Robert Anton Wilson consists not of cardinals and popes, but of the editors and reviewers of scientific journals, of leading authorities and self-appointed "skeptics", and last but not least of corporations and governments that have a vested interest in keeping the status quo, and it is just as effective in suppressing unorthodox ideas as the original. The scientists in the editorial boards of journals who decide which research is fit to be published, and which is not, the scientists at the patent office who decide what feats nature allows human technology to perform, and which ones it does not, and the scientists in governmental agencies who decide what proposals to fund, and not to fund, either truly believe that they are in complete knowledge of all the fundamental laws of nature, or they purposely suppress certain discoveries that threaten the scientific prestige of individuals or institutions, or economic interests. Research that indicates that an accepted theory is incomplete, severely flawed, or completely mistaken, will be rejected on the grounds that it "contradicts the laws of nature", and therefore has to be the result of sloppiness or fraud. At the heart of this argument is the incorrect notion that theory overrides evidence
In true science, theory always surrenders to the primacy of evidence. If observations are made that, after careful verification and theoretical analysis, are found to be inconsistent with a theory, than that theory has to go - no matter how aesthetically pleasing it is, or how prestigious its supporters are, or how many billions of dollars a certain industry has bet on it.
But in current mainstream science, the opposite occurs with disturbing regularity. Anomalous evidence is first ignored, then ridiculed, and if that fails, its author attacked. Scientific conferences will not admit it to be presented, scientific journals will refuse to publish it, and fellow scientists know better than to express solidarity with an unorthodox colleague. In today's scientific world, the cards are just stacked too heavily against true scientific breakthroughs. Too many careers are at stake, too many vested interests are involved for any truly revolutionary advancement in science to take place any more. All too often, scientific truth is determined by the authority of experts and textbooks, not by logic and reason.
Referring to the fin de siecle "end of science" mentality and the scientific revolutions following it, Robert G. Jahn writes in 20th and 21st Century Science: Reflections and Projections.
Science is in a state of crisis. Where free inquiry, natural curiosity and open-minded discussion and consideration of new ideas should reign, a new orthodoxy has emerged. This 'new inquisition', as it has been called by Robert Anton Wilsonconsists not of cardinals and popes, but of the editors and reviewers of scientific journals, of leading authorities and self-appointed "skeptics", and last but not least of corporations and governments that have a vested interest in keeping the status quo, and it is just as effective in suppressing unorthodox ideas as the original. The scientists in the editorial boards of journals who decide which research is fit to be published, and which is not, the scientists at the patent office who decide what feats nature allows human technology to perform, and which ones it does not, and the scientists in governmental agencies who decide what proposals to fund, and not to fund, either truly believe that they are in complete knowledge of all the fundamental laws of nature, or they purposely suppress certain discoveries that threaten the scientific prestige of individuals or institutions, or economic interests. Research that indicates that an accepted theory is incomplete, severely flawed, or completely mistaken, will be rejected on the grounds that it "contradicts the laws of nature", and therefore has to be the result of sloppiness or fraud. At the heart of this argument is the incorrect notion that theory overrides evidence
In true science, theory always surrenders to the primacy of evidence. If observations are made that, after careful verification and theoretical analysis, are found to be inconsistent with a theory, than that theory has to go - no matter how aesthetically pleasing it is, or how prestigious its supporters are, or how many billions of dollars a certain industry has bet on it.
But in current mainstream science, the opposite occurs with disturbing regularity. Anomalous evidence is first ignored, then ridiculed, and if that fails, its author attacked. Scientific conferences will not admit it to be presented, scientific journals will refuse to publish it, and fellow scientists know better than to express solidarity with an unorthodox colleague. In today's scientific world, the cards are just stacked too heavily against true scientific breakthroughs. Too many careers are at stake, too many vested interests are involved for any truly revolutionary advancement in science to take place any more. All too often, scientific truth is determined by the authority of experts and textbooks, not by logic and reason.
Referring to the fin de siecle "end of science" mentality and the scientific revolutions following it, Robert G. Jahn writes in 20th and 21st Century Science: Reflections and Projections:
"As we enter the 21st century, science seems poised to execute a similar evolutionary cycle of advancement of their comprehension and relevance. We are opening with a steadily growing backlog of demonstrable physical, biological and psychological anomalies (..) most of which seem incontrovertibly correlated with properties and processes of the human mind, in ways for which our preceding 20th century scientific paradigm has no rational explanations. (..)
Thus, at the dawn of the 21st century, we again find an elite, smugly contented scientific establishment, but one now endowed with far more public authority and respect than that of the prior version. A veritable priesthood of high science controls major segments of public and private policy and expenditure for research, development, construction, production, education and publication throughout the world, and enjoys a cultural trust and reverence that extends far beyond its true merit. It is an establishment that is largely consumed with refinements and deployments of mid-20th century science, rather than with creative advancement of fundamental understanding of the most profound and seminal aspects of its trade. Even more seriously, it is an establishment that persists in frenetically sweeping legitimate genres of new anomalous phenomena under its intellectual carpet, thereby denying its own well-documented heritage that anomalies are the most precious raw material from which future science is formed."
In his debut editorial as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Henry H. Bauer gives a similarly bleak assessment of the state of modern science:
"Mainstream orthodoxy routinely resists novelties that later become accepted. Throughout the 20th century there are examples: Bretz's Spokane flood, McClintock's recognition of "jumping genes", Mitchell's insights into biological energy mechanisms, Woese's Archaea, and McCully's homocysteine. Only late in the 20th century did science reluctantly grant that acupuncture can have some analgesic effect, that ball lightning exists, that the kraken is not myth but the real giant squid, that it is not foolish to look for intelligent life outside the Earth, that 5000-year-old megaliths incorporate substantial knowledge of astronomy, that human beings inhabited the Americas long before the days of the Clovis culture, and that living systems can sense not only electrical but also magnetic fields. Indeed, it may well be that the suppression of unorthodox views in science is on the increase rather than in decline. In Prometheus Bound (1994), John Ziman has outlined how science changed during the 20th century: traditionally (since perhaps the 17th century) a relatively disinterested knowledge-seeking activity, science progressively became handmaiden to industry and government, and its direction of research is increasingly influenced by vested interests and self-interested bureaucracies, including bureaucracies supposedly established to promote good science such as the National Academies, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health. Parkinson's Law, it may be, applies to science as to other human activities: no sooner has an organization become successfully established than it is by that token already an obsolescent nuisance."
In many cases of anomalous evidence that inconveniences establishment science, simple denial of publication suffices to suppress the anomaly. Sometimes, however, renegade scientists manage to capture the attention of the general public, pleading their case to a larger audience that has no vested interest in the validity of the established theories. When that happens, and significant interests are at stake, the scientific establishment will turn nasty, resorting to misrepresentation or outright falsification of evidence.
Tweet