Quote:
|
Yes the scientific method IS Dogmatic and it should BE. Why? Because they do research rather than ASSUME a God that parts the Red Sea for a bunch of people. Ask Newton, ask Einstein... when something is proven to be true it is a Truth. The End. Finito!
|
This is actually totally incorrect. The scientific method is non-dogmatic and self correcting for one reason. It does not reach truth. And in fact, this was a big frustration that Einstein expressed.
It's best summed up in Sherlock Holmes's famous quote:
Quote:
|
Once you've eliminated the probable, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
|
This is the essence of the scientific method. You can imagine an infinite domain of possible explanations for an event. You take a region of the possibilities and you design a test for them (this is hypothesis and testing). You then disprove or fail to disprove a hypothesis. If you disprove it, you discard that piece of the space of possibilities.
In this manner, as a sculptor cuts away the excess material to reveal the shape underneath, science gets to the truth.
But science never says "this is truth". It says "this is what we observe" and it may be able to say, if observations directly contradict a point, that something is false. But as any good scientist will tell you, there is always an approach to truth and never acquisition of truth in science. The space of possibilities is infinite and there is always another test and another theory to be brought to bear on the problem.
Then there's a whole realm of untestable hypotheses like invisible dragons (see carl sagan).
When crazy fundamentalists hold up blank pieces of paper and yell "this is all the proof there is for evolution!" I smile and realize that he's exactly right. You do not show proof, you show evidence. There's a big difference. That difference is why the the scientific method is non-dogmatic. It takes nothing authoritatively.
The theory of evolution is not something separate from the body of evidence, in fact, the theory of evolution simply is a condensed way of describing all of the evidence that has lead up to it.
Agnosticism is the essence of science. They never say concretely that they KNOW something to be true and that there's no other possibility. They may say "i know from observation," but that's different.. it's a qualification where they indicate that they are NOT an authority.
If you put a bunch of kids on an island and they grew up and formed a society separate from humanity, I doubt they'd generate the bible. But I think it's fair to say that they would develop an understanding of the world around them through observation and testing. Dogmatic structures can't be independently arrived at. A path towards truth and a good "idea" of what's going on in reality can develop independently.
Dogmatic = prove something true by authority (axioms)
Non-dogmatic = Showing what is false only