Scientific community has its own problems with dogmatism.

[theBLADE1]

Don't ever tell me you're an atheist because "science" has disproved the afterlife. I love science, and I believe we need more scientifically minded in today's world, BUT it's unquestionable that the scientific community is just as rigid in their set of beliefs that they can't prove as Noah's Ark is to a devout Bible thumping Christian.

Copernicus was shunned by the scientific community of his day for his hypothesis that the earth and other planets revolved around the sun. It wasn't until Einstein's theory of relativity came out that Copernicus was ultimately proven to be correct. One of the fundamental natures of the human condition is arrogance, so don't ever assume we have the universe at large figured out. Because we definitely DO NOT!

This was a TED talk by Rupert Sheldrake that was ultimately pulled down by many powerful names in the mainstream of the scientific community. It is a must watch!

 

[ehtheist]

TED talk? But aren't they all Leftist and stuff? I don't know how to feel

 

[The Best JG]

@Scyther this idiot thinks the earth is round come teach him a thing or 2

 

[Soul Rebel 2]

Has it become dogmatic? That's perfectly arguable. As dogmatic as religion? No, thats a false equivalency. Science is based on evidence, even if it may, hypothetically, be flawed; religion is based on faith, something with no value in the real world.

 

[Pwent]

I don't even get the "I'm an atheist because science" deal

Science has no answer on how life started on earth. The primordial soup theory isn't proven by the scientific method. Despite attempts to recreate the same conditions of pressure and heat, on the same abiotic materials, there has never been "spontaneous" life

We have found zero evidence disproving the law of abiogenesis

It's cool if you want to be an atheist but science doesn't "prove" atheism

 

[Pwent]

Has it become dogmatic? That's perfectly arguable. As dogmatic as religion? No, thats a false equivalency. Science is based on evidence, even if it may, hypothetically, be flawed; religion is based on faith, something with no value in the real world.

Evidence huh?

How many of them believe that life spontaneously came out of "primordial soup"

 

[TheComebackKid]

Been saying this for years

 

[IDL]

Certain aspects of it are dogmatic I think. Usually when there is overlap with political interests. Politics has a way of corrupting things.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

The scientific method is far superior to religion as a tool for divining truth from fiction.

It's the best tool ever devised because of its self correcting mechanism.

A mechanism which religion NOTICEABLY lacks.

 

[lecter]

Science is shit and should be replaced by religion.
Also makes much more sense since Trump declared the USA a theocracy.

 

[theBLADE1]

Has it become dogmatic? That's perfectly arguable. As dogmatic as religion? No, thats a false equivalency. Science is based on evidence, even if it may, hypothetically, be flawed; religion is based on faith, something with no value in the real world.

Are scientist pushing gay people off the roof of buildings in accordance with sharia law? No they are not. But my point is that there is a dangerous rigidity towards new ideas about the nature of our universe and scientist tendencies to label everything that doesn't conform as pseudoscience. Scientist believe they have EVERYTHING figured out and they're just plugging in the holes as they acquire new information.

I like how Sheldrake hypothesizes that the laws of physics may be more habits than laws. Please watch the video I posted.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I don't even get the "I'm an atheist because science" deal

Science has no answer on how life started on earth. The primordial soup theory isn't proven by the scientific method. Despite attempts to recreate the same conditions of pressure and heat, on the same abiotic materials, there has never been "spontaneous" life

We have found zero evidence disproving the law of abiogenesis

It's cool if you want to be an atheist but science doesn't "prove" atheism

Oh geez you went full @Thai Domi

 

[SaiWa]

If it wasn't for religion persecuting science for a millennium or two we would all be in electric flying cars right now....

fuck religion... which one you may ask? all of them....

 

[snakedafunky]

I am an atheist because of science.

 

[theBLADE1]

Science is shit and should be replaced by religion.
Also makes much more sense since Trump declared the USA a theocracy.

Let's not get carried away...

 

[SaiWa]

Let's not get carried away...

no no.. let him get carried away... I wanna see where it goes...

never interrupt someone in the middle of a mistake. it's infinitely more fun that way...

 

[theBLADE1]

I changed the thread title because I don't want this to become a discussion about which is more dogmatic, science or mainstream religion. The point was that the scientific community holds two is set of beliefs very rigidly and they don't like any ideas to the contrary even being considered. That's the point of this thread.

 

[Soul Rebel 2]

Evidence huh?

How many of them believe that life spontaneously came out of "primordial soup"

The process of creating amino acids from various base elements is both understandable and replicable in a lab, what to know what isn't? A space fairy making life out of dirt and rib cages.

 

[mon]

Has it become dogmatic? That's perfectly arguable. As dogmatic as religion? No, thats a false equivalency. Science is based on evidence, even if it may, hypothetically, be flawed; religion is based on faith, something with no value in the real world.

I honestly believe that the hardcore science people are as dogmatic as the hard core religious nuts. There may be less of them but its getting worse and worse. Compound this with no ownership, responsibility or actually punishment for poor or fraudulent science and they can do as much or more damage. ie. cigarettes were safe in the day.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I wouldn't say its as dogmatic as religion but there does seem to be an almost dogmatic faith in the scientific community among some people. The scientific method is great but nothing is perfect or incorruptible. There are perverse incentives that can infect science like a bias towards positive over negative results, differential scrutiny between politically correct and incorrect results, and the biases of scientists themselves in choosing what to research and how.