We weren't talking about science in this instance of the conversation, we were talking about knowledge. And therefore, the subjective quantity of experience led to the knowledge that fire is hot, not an out on a limb claim.
Fair enough, i'll conceed that.
There's no leap of faith. Even the proponents of dark matter won't tell you they're 100% absolutely sure that dark matter exists.
As humans they'd want to be vindicated that their theory is right sure, that's only human. But the specific question "Are you 100% sure that dark matter exists?" will get you an answer of 'no'.
A small leap of faith doesnt have to denote absolute certainity, simply that you have faith in the possiblity of your line of enquiry.
Do people chasing ghosts believe with 100% certainty that ghosts exist as an external phenomena? i doubt very much they do, theyre just seeing where their enquiry takes them and what comes of their investigation.
At both ends of the spectrum, regardless of methodology its human beings going after an idea/going out on a limb.
This isnt how 'all" knowledge is aquired, you were right to correct me on that, but a large porportion of it is. Would you disagree with this?
You seemed to be supporting Vizzie's ridiculous comparison. So I came at both of you guns a-blazing. The comparison that science is dogmatic (far less claiming it is a religion) is quite unfounded.
Far from it, its a huuuuge problem in science that most scientist are more than aware of. Infact theres a huge debate amonsts scientists right now over global warming, the -
'global warming is a redherring' lobby are basically arguing that those 'for' the idea of global warming as simply allowing social dogma and popular attitudes within the media to dictate whether or not it exists, rather than relying purely on the data itself.
I think to be honest youre pretty much out in the cold if you dont think dogma is a problem in science, its far too easy for scientists to become comfortable with the 'scientific facts' they learnt at university and to balk at anyone claiming they may be erroneous.
Its simply the way humanbeings work, its why new ideas only become fully accepted once the older generation at the helm eventially die of old age. This is widely recognised within the scientific community and far from just an opinion of mine.
You may or may not be right that humans are belief driven. More than likely since there only 16% of the world calls itself "athiest" or "agnostic" or "non religious". Ascribing this ratio to the modern scientific community however is unfair unless you have some sort of non-dogmatic evidence to back it up.
Maybe it would be simpler to just say its a real problem, rather than ascribing a specific ratio?
While yes there are varying interpretations in quantum mechanics, you'll get none of these people claiming absolute infallibility. This is not dogmatic.
True but on the flipside look at some of the essays Bohm wrote, i think its pretty loud and clear that he had already made up his mind
already how the universe works! Infact when i think back to essays by other scientists ive found this attitude to be pretty universal, you cant state your opinions as fact within a science journal of course, but if youre writing an essay or book its hard not to let slip with any beliefs you might hold.
Name a few, point out the empirical evidence and (key here) then tell me that these incorrect scientific consensuses still exist...
Well i pointed one out earlier - global warming, still a hotbed of controversy in science.
Thinking of another - Group selection in evolution is contraversial however the data is absolutely sound, but the idea doesnt seem to have really taken hold yet.
People cant really get beyond the main tenants of gene/kin selection. I suspect the problem here is essentially asking people to stop thinking in terms of dna and genes as being the central currency in evolution. Its kind of like trying to re-write one of the 10 commandments in terms of evolutionary theory.
Thinking of recent one in archeology, archeological groups had been arguing over the existance of small tribes of miniture humanoids for half a century, all the evidence was there. Consensus just wouldnt swing in their favour though, i suspect part of the problem was that many people had a false association going on whereby communities of dwarfs/elfs were the stuff of fairy-tale and myth and therefore couldnt be true by default.
If they do not exist, or if evidences of opposite are circumstantial or questionable, this is clearly not dogma, it is simply red tape.
Not so, aging scientists are well known to reach a point whereby they become far too fond of their pet theories and what they were taught originally at college and stop assimilating or accepting current data, (or the weight of consensus). Not suprising - it must feel like someone trying to tear down a belief system youve held all your life!
Perhaps (again considering the overwhelming theist population)...however many scientists are not in the majority of dogmatic humans. Dogmatic scientists (an oxymoron if i ever heard one) would more than likely be in the minority.
Possibly, although i personally think the system of science itself is less prone to dogma rather than the individuals that compose the system being less prone.
