Science as a worldview is just like every other dogma

[ChristineM]

That actually implies that the behavior can repeat itself for observation. You failed to represent it more precisely scores no one any points. It's thus an attempt to use a more superficial definition which failed to represent a more in-depth nature of what science is.

That is the official definition, you dont like it take it up with the OED.

 

[Hawkins]

That is the official definition, you dont like it take it up with the OED.

It's actually a fallacy similar to "the scientists are more correct about science" without actually looking into the logic of discussion. If you like fallacies then so be it.

 

[Polymath257]

I already answered that, re-read my post.

In a nutshell, you can't call everything a science. Science is a very specific set of truth mostly with a phenomenon which can repeat itself. Anything going beyond this point as leveraged by the term "evidence" remains the "dogma of a fabricated world view".

An example is, whatever you eat today can be evidenced or not. Whatever method you use to make your meal today evidenced can't usually be considered a science, as you can't use the same method to detect the same evidence for a meal you ate several years ago. Your meal (i.e., the food contents you ate) in its very nature is not a repeatable phenomenon subject to repeating observation.

No, the *process* can repeat itself even if the events do not. that is part of what allows for historical science.

In your example, I can use the same method today to detect what I ate today as I did yesterday to determine what I ate yesterday. And I could have used that same method several years ago to determine what I ate that day.

You are asking for the repeatability of the specific phenomena, when it is the repeatability of the method for obtaining correct answers that is at issue.

 

[ChristineM]

It's actually a fallacy similar to "the scientists are more correct about science" without actually looking into the logic of discussion. If you like fallacies then so be it.

So you want a different definition than the rest of the world. That way confusion lies, which explains much about your confusion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Science is a dogma of belief

Scie nce is nothing like belief.

Science begins with no assumptions, but only observes what is around
Science forms testable hypotheses based on these observations
Science performs these tests and records the factual esults.
Science then makes conclusions based solely on those factual results
Science develops broad theories explaining all the known facts drawn from many different lines of inquiry.

Belief is usually not irrational, but it is not based on proven facts. Instead it is what a person intuits is probably true, based on sources they trust.
That source could be a person or sacred text or set of traditions.
Although the person trusts their source, the reliability of the source is unproven.

Another difference between science and religious beliefs is what they give us.

What religion gives us is the opportunity to change. Most followers do not avail themselves of the opportunity. However, if a person truly wants to change their life, religions have the tools they need to do this.

Science gives us longer and healthier life and creature comforts and ha been very, very, very good at this. It has really delivered. If I have pneumonia, I'd much rather get a shot of penecillin than have my church pray for me (although Ideally I'd like both! )

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Science is a dogma of belief simply because its nature is misunderstood by its believers. Science is about the discovery of a set of rule behind a repeatable phenomenon. The phenomenon itself can be repeatable unlimited number of times for human to study repeatedly and infinitive number of times to get to a conclusion. More importantly, the result can be extremely accurate because the repeating phenomenon allows us to predict the it repeats itself into the future. In a nutshell, humans don't have the capability to tell a future, if we can repeatedly predict a future without error, it only means that the tool/theory we are using to predict such a future must be a true. The is the nature of what science is and why it is accurate. Physics theory can always predictably bring us to the surface of the moon. If we failed we don't complain about the theory or physics laws. It must be an error due to other factors (such as human errors) than the physics laws. If a space shuttle exploded, no one will question that it's a failure of our physics laws. That is to say, the prediction by physics laws that we can land to the surface of moon will always come to pass and infallible. If our mission failed it's not because anything wrong with the prediction of the physics laws. It must be something else in error.

The misconception comes from the believers of science think that science relies on evidence to stand. This is the biggest misunderstanding ever existed. Science relies on the prediction of a repeating behavior to stand, instead of evidence. Evidence is just a superficial understanding of science. This misunderstanding actually makes science a religion of dogmas. This is so because the belief of "evidence" allows the term "science" to be extendable to areas outside the scope of a repeatable phenomenon. The believers of "science" have faith that science is about almost everything as along as "evidence" is applicable in supporting a scenario, and to retain the comparable accuracy of a true science. This "world view of science" is however a religion of belief, the most deceptive one ever existed.

Firstly humans DO have the capability to predict the future. We call this cognitive process, "pattern recognition". It is the process of comparing the relationship of the external information we receive from our sense organs, to the information we have stored in our memory. This evolutionary part of our decision-making process is obviously crucial for our survival. Science also relies on its evidence to validate its predictions.

Science is not inherently dogmatic. There is no ultimate authority. There is no ultimate truth. There is nothing immutable in science. In fact, science is built upon the non-religious principles of re-evaluation, change, and the questioning of authority. I agree that there is a certain amount of faith required, when relying on our observations alone. But, science doesn't rely on our observations alone. It relies on a convergence of other related evidence, including measurements, experimentations, and inductive/deductive reasoning. This would be no different than stating that it takes faith to accept reality. Science does however follow the guiding principles that structure its methodology. Namely, the “scientific method”. Scientific principles are based on their practicality as a tool to explain natural phenomena. Hence, they are not used to explain faith, belief, or the supernatural. These principles might seem dogmatic, but only because they have been used for many years. And so far, have proven to be the best way to promote discovery and truth. If a new or better method were to be discovered, these principles would change in a heartbeat, or simply be discarded. Since scientific principles, theories, and rules do CHANGE, they are not dogmatic. If evidence were to be discovered that could disprove Continental Drift, the Germ Theory, Relativity, or EM, then science would certainly change to accommodate this evidence. In either case, science is not dogmatic or Belief-based. It is simply a method of inquiry, that is driven by evidence, data, logic, self-criticism, experimentation, peer review, and critical thinking.

On the other hand, religious dogma does not lend itself to change based on any critical self-evaluation. It truly represents the meaning of the word dogma. This is why it has such a long history of religious “heretics” being persecuted, executed, and excommunicated. Religions mostly operates in the absence of evidence. It's principles mainly rely upon pre-agreed answers(dogma). Religious councils in the past have even met to decide on how to interpret new religious principles. This was not to incorporate the new evidence or to change the principles accordingly. This was used to silence heretics and dissenters(Council of Nicaea-325). Dogma is the complete unwillingness to change beliefs, or laws in the face of any new evidence. Dogma is also a set of unwavering rules and principles that do not change over time. Science however, is constantly updating itself through a continuous feedback loop of questioning, peer review, verification, experimentation, theory, and revision.

This just seems like another attempt to falsely equate religious beliefs to the scientific method of inquiry. One is totally subjective, and the other is totally objective. One is totally based on facts and evidence, and the other based totally on the absence of facts, or facts NOT in evidence. One is immutable, and the other is mutable. One is based on absolute truth, and the other is based on a high degree of certainty. Finally, one is based on the perception of credibility, and the other is based on proven credibility. What you fail to understand is, that all the laws of nature were here long before us. We are only trying to explain and understand them as accurately as we can. So why do YOU think objects fall from the sky, instead of floating in the air? Why do YOU think a rock sink to the bottom of a lake? Will YOUR answers be based on deception, dogma, worldview, belief, or faith?