Thread: An Empirical View of Science Dogma

Here I thought the premise all along was those specifically of materialistic paradigms and scientism that would have their own dispositions on what would be proper applications of Science, and not having a shred of curiosity for something that contradicts their claims. Anything beyond that where society creates their own subjective meanings based on cultural distinctions, upbringing, social conditioning, and such is obvious, but not really an argument though.

Do note that if individuals were so open-minded to be captivated that if a decent number of individuals believed it (and I'm talking about things that aren't observed with common sense and developed through simple theoretical deduction), it would be catering to argumetum ad populum (i.e. if so many believe it to be so, it is so). It's not really about dogma as much now (but it can still be probable of course), but more of how people weigh certain judgements and values towards a popular opinion, or any opinion where the premises seem convincing. Now, if it's something where an opinion declares a conclusion towards a premise as being true (especially irrefutably true), then people would naturally question the person doing so.

Things like herd mentality and other biases may lead to some cultural groups feeling as if a conclusion is irrefutably true, but those would be extremists at best. The difference would be premises vs. conclusions, and if it's the former, weighing personal opinion or not towards the premises is what sustains argumentum ad populum's grip on subjectivity. But if it's something where there's a conclusion on the other hand, it would imply there could be an objective statement. The same logic would apply within scientific fields and what have you, but we know that the method of inquiry is limited based on factors mentioned already, and then some, and how people collectively try to find patterns of reality and such is the what we're limited to in terms of cognitive grasps of reality.

It's understandable that some people will stick to premises, form them into absolute conclusions for their own personal gain, and having something to cling onto. But it's another matter where there are certain situations where people will have their own means of placing judgement, value, belief, and trust towards premises, but not necessarily feeling coerced to make it an absolute conclusion.

Voldmer defined dogma as confusing one's belief for fact. Whether ad populum is also a factor doesn't mean the label of dogma fails to remain apt in describing the discomfort people have of uncertainty and rebellion against it. I wouldn't necessarily say they hold no curiosity but that they are afraid of what that curiosity may lead to. Materialism provides a safe haven to reside one's perspective in an otherwise chaotic and inexplicable reality. So when Sheldrake submits evidence on telepathy, it threatens this haven by showing that maybe we do not yet understand reality.

I'll just go with the general definition of dogma that can be found here. There's a myriad of interpretations of the word, but I'll just take into consideration of something more neutral rather than appealing to one individual's interpretation.

As for Sheldrake submitting evidence, you don't have to be a materialist to realize that if a person makes a claim for something that hasn't been up to the standard of repeatability and experimentation as evidence (within the margin of applying the method of inquiry of such presumptions), then they should be questioned. Even if you're talking about anecdotal evidence and testimonies, ad populum is there with open arms, but for validity, probably not so much. As for materialism being a safe haven, that sounds a bit depressing if a view that may hold consciousness being an epiphenomenon of the totality of neural and chemical activity of the brain gives solace (and avoiding explaining what "I" may be in that similar conceptual framework). At this point, I think it's just crazy to attribute that as a means for comfort for materialists, even to those who may not be so confident of how their consciousness operates.


Doesn't really sound like materialism, just more of nihilists with massive brain damage.

Yes - it's absurd, to propose, that materialism is a solace. Quite the opposite is the case.
I lately came across Wolf Singer, neurophysiologist, proposing that the "self" would be something, which springs not from a brain alone, but emerges by contact/dialogue with other beings. Not sure, what I think of it - but since I got it at hand:

Originally Posted by Wolf Singer

However, there are other aspects of conscious-
ness, such as self-awareness and the experience
of individuality, that seem to require explan-
ations which transcend purely neurobiological
reductionism. It is my perception that the onto-
logical status of these phenomena differs from
that of the qualia of phenomenal awareness, and
that it is these aspects of consciousness which
give rise to the hard problems in the philosophy
of mind and provide the incentive for adopting
dualistic positions. The most challenging phe-
nomenon in this context is that we perceive
ourselves as agents who are endowed with the
freedom to decide, implying that the self is
capable of controlling, by will, processes in the
brain. We experience these aspects of conscious-
ness as immaterial mental entities that are
capable of influencing the neuronal processes
required for execution of actions, and hence we
perceive them as different from the material
processes in the brain.
I propose that these latter connotations of
consciousness are perceived as different because
they require for their development interactions
among brains that are succinctly differentiated
as to have phenomenal awareness and to signal
to one another that they are endowed with this
capacity. Such brains are able to enter dialogues
of the kind ‘‘I know that you know how I feel’’
or ‘‘I know that you know what my intentions
are,’’ and so on. My proposal is that the experi-
ence of the ‘‘self’’ with all its subjective mental
attributes emerges from such dialogues among
human beings, above all from the early inter-
actions between caregivers and babies. The
experience of individuality and responsibility,
and as a consequence the intuition that one is
endowed with intentionality and free will, would
then have to be considered as a product of
social interactions. The subjective attributes of
consciousness would have the ontological status
of social realities, of cultural constructs, and
would therefore, transcend pure neurobiological
description systems that focus on individual
brains.
The mechanisms that enable us to experience
ourselves as endowed with mental capacities do,
of course, reside in individual brains, but the
contents of this experience are derived from
social interactions. But why then should the ex-
perience of the self be so obviously different from
other experiences that we also derive from social
interactions? One explanation could be that the
dialogue that leads to the experience of the self is
initiated during an early developmental stage,
before episodic memory matures and begins to
keep track of what the brain experiences. If so,
there would be no conscious record of the pro-
cesses that led to the experience of the self and
the associated subjective connotations of con-
sciousness. Because of this amnesia these early
experiences would lack causation; they would
appear to be timeless and detached from any real
world context. In consequence, the subjective
connotations of consciousness, although acquired
by learning, would be perceived as having tran-
scendental qualities that resist reductionistic
explanations.

From here: Neural Correlates Of Consciousness
Chapter 8

Certainty is the solace, not necessarily the details of materialism but specifically the comfort of knowing something. Even if, in your mind, materialism is depressing, it's far more comfortable to know the depressing truth than be thrust into the unknown.

Initially, materialism makes sense so we grow attached to it. Then when it's challenged, we rise to defend it like we're defending ourselves because we identify with what we believe to be true.

Whether Sheldrake's experiments truly failed to be repeated or were dismissed prejudicially is not my call to make. I don't believe it far-fetched that our minds are extended and connected, it makes more sense than not based on my personal experiences so I'll admit that I favor experiments on telepathy because I'm excited to see if Science can explain what's going on with the mind and how it works. But the premise of this thread is not about the validity of Sheldrake's experiments, it's about the dogma that invalidated them based on bias against what they propose. I was thinking of starting a new thread to talk about morphic resonance and other theories that counter materialism but I haven't learned enough about those theories yet to argue them effectively.

Meh, I believe our perception can expand to cover more elements of the universe, and we do that artificially now, but the problem is that we might not be able at all to translate some elements, thus leaving a chance for false assumptions for advanced laws, exactly because all elements suggest it's likeliness.
So, even if our logic can handle everything we might perceive, our perception might still be limited.

Without reading back now, at all, sorry - I feel like here's an open building ground - and I might - no I do feel compelled to step down on such an out of hand dismissal of the idea of this thread as my memory says, I had presented - in part in opposition to the individual of the video, call that fallacy, surely... Whatever - having it making metaphorical noises in the back of my mind - I would want to take the initiative and acknowledge, Original Poster, that you do indeed have a point!

Why now? Well - because I wondered, if somebody else might be able to turn around on something, actually, and then on top of that suddenly coming across maybe one of the most intelligent youtube - well - don't know, statements!? - in ages. Really - lovely! I am not interested, not a lot, in her topic of passion, the men's right's movement, but wow, what an intellectual joy to listen to and very much on topic, besides her personal focus of attention! This:



Wonderful - a woman, who talks from my heart, I have to say, in terms of my experiences with proclaimed, even radical feminists. I've been thinking like a "coffee-house feminist", when young, like believing it somewhat equivalent to Humanism, but it is not and my personal dogma-fire-alarms went off with them long years back.
There is a coincidence, too - the husband of a good old friend of mine is a German independent movie director, and his new movie will be about the male victim of female sexual abuse. Very taboo, this, but thanks to him, I was prepared for the video mentioning it. He's been at heavy topics before, looking forward to what will come out of it, soon I guess.

One more thing - I just read one of the most fascinating books in a long while. Also on gender, in the middle, by far not enough, though, now I think of it, but it's all about looking at the human body and - not enough of that, too, but a bit - the human mind, even aspects of dreaming, from an evolutionary developmental stance. Like why it's not loud noises, strong haptics and smell so much in dreams, intensity-wise - could be so that we can be warned by these perceptions, if they come in from real life outside the sleeper, analogous with optical illusions/hallucinations... Darwinian Medicine for the laywoman, willing to strain her grey and white and whatnot cells a bit! And not what some might have under their respective smoke-detector, eugenics, Nazis - nope!! Just trying to make the most possible sense of things, some quite daring speculations as well and ideas for research for tons of PhDs and even careers! For example some supposed genetic disorders can be better explained as an actual adaptation, if not necessarily to our present environment. "Why We Get Sick" by Randolph M. Nesse.

Whatever - she grazes upon science-dogma as well at funnily about 22:22 min in, and of course she's right, more in academia than in hard science, but sure it's there and it's abundant, and especially in medicine, more so in psychiatry and psychology. But it's an epi-phenomenon - it's human nature, given to us, selected into us even by evolution, so I believe! Not that Nesse would present an idea on the role of dogma, or even religion in the scope of his treatise, but one comes to think...

So there - cheers Original Poster - steph turns around, with a slight groan, but not a loud one...