Science vs. Dogma - FAQ

Aparthib Zaman

Q#1: Isn't Science also a dogma? It also clings to its theories like dogma, do not accept the possibility of other alternate theories or views being right. It also does not admit the possibility of its being wrong.

A#1: Science accepts a theory as a tentative truth, only if it explains observations of reality better then any other one based on logic and evidence. Until a better theory is offered based on logic and evidence, or until any evidence is available that contradicts current theory, there is no reason to change it or to accept another one advocated by someone else. Science cannot accept any theory proposed by anyone as valid just by taking their word for it or on faith. Only evidence and logic can justify acceptance of a theory.

A dogma preaches absoluteness and infallibility of its claim to the truth. Dogma does not admit of any possibility of its being wrong, therefore ruling out any revision. For science to be a  dogma, it has to affirm that a scientific principle is final, infallible and not subject to revision. Science/Scientists never affirm that. Science constantly revises it's own position when evidence and observations forces it to.  Scientific method contains an in-built mechanism to  self-correct. So science cannot be a dogma. Science textbooks undergo periodic revisions. religious texts do not.

Q#2: How can science be so arrogant and claim that it's method is superior to others ?

A#2: Science does not have to claim that. Science only emphasizes objectivity, logic & evidence. Scientific method has proved that it works. In fact it has worked better than any other approach to finding the truth. Just like evolution, which through natural selection, selects the fittest in the struggle for survival, scientific method has been selected by humanity with an overwhelming consensus as a preferred tool over all others in the quest for truth, The fact that astrology is not taught in any university, but astronomy is, or that dianetics is not, but genetics is, are testimonies to that fact of selection of the fittest at work.

Q#3: How can you say science is not a dogma when I see an article in a science magazine where the author mentions about a scientific discovery overturning a long held dogma of science?

A#3: Every time an individual author, journalist, scientist etc. uses a figure of speech, metaphor or poetic license etc that should not trigger reinterpretation or reexamination of science. The notion of rationalism or science should not change with the choice of words and expressions by individuals in certain contexts mainly to draw analogy. We also cannot put our own interpretation of their remarks. For example, when Hawking mentions that  "Theory of Everything", if and when found, would be like "Reading the mind of God", he used it as a metaphoric expression. One cannot interpret that to mean it was a scientific proof of God's existence (Or proof of Hawking's belief in God). Hawking was not discussing the proof of God in the context of that remark, but the possibility of finding the ultimate law of Physics. Same remarks apply to the use of the word "dogma" in such scientific articles. The author was not discussing the question if Science can be considered a dogma but was discussing a new scientific discovery. He used the word "dogma" metaphorically to mean a long held scientific premise. Like all scientific premise, if new scientific discovery or evidence suggests a change in that long held premise it will be subject to revision. That is what science is all about. Only science revises and even refutes its own premises. No dogma does that.

Q#4 I have read many articles which saying that certain theories of science are taught by certain teachers as if they were dogmas and that some theories are held by scientists like a dogma, not science, because they refuse to admit any alternate theories as valid. How can you then say science is not dogma?

A#4: A proof that a proposition (Science is a dogma) is TRUE must be based on logic and/or evidence, not by citing articles from non-scientific journals containing such views. None of the above remarks in those articles prove Science = dogma. This kind of "proofs" would certainly not fly in academic circles. The fact is that scientific method is well-defined, that is not determined by the position held individual adherents of science. More importantly the number of such adherents who do hold such dogmatic view about certain theories must be in the minority. Otherwise science would have been static and hardly made any progress, contrary to reality. Majority do adhere to scientific method, that's why science has been so successful, so dynamic. The minority of "scientists" who do hold such dogmatic stand do not matter to the scientific community, or to science.

Let me repeat what distinguishes dogma from science and then state the obvious criteria which a proof of SCIENCE = DOGMA should meet. After that hopefully a reader will not spend precious time poring over every article that is cited looking for the proof.

1. Dogma: Affirms a belief that is claimed to be an absolute truth, unchangeable, regardless of any evidence or logic CONTRADICTING it, denying even the possibility of any contradicting evidence or logic IN PRINCIPLE.

2. Science : Affirms a tentative statement of truth, based on logic and/or evidence, explaining facts and observations better than any competeing claim of truth, that is changeable, if and when evidence or logic to the contrary is available. and admitting the possibility of such. If and when such evidence is available, the statement of truth is either abandoned, revised, or generalized as the case may be.

It is clear that one cannot logically prove that Science = dogma as they are mutually contradictory by 1 and 2 above. The best criterion for one to prove it is by citing an exception, i,e produce an example where a scientific principle was not abandoned, revised or generalized even when an evidence or logic to the contrary was available. The history of science is full of examples showing rule #2 at work. NO exception yet. None of those articles cited show any example of any evidence that CONTRADICTED any principle which was still held to be true and not revised inspite of it. It will suffice to ask if the criteria of the proof of science = dogma is met everytime a claim of the proof that science = dogma is made. And the criteria of the proof is again simply: "Produce an example where a scientific principle was not abandoned, revised or generalized even when an evidence or logic to the contrary was available"