Thread: An Empirical View of Science Dogma

The premise of the argument in this scenario would be how ancient Egyptians may have had their own distinctions on relying on making presumptions based on sense experience, observation, and developing their own a priori truths. As for me implying that dogma dictated the beliefs of the ancient Egyptians at that time, I guess I correlate dogma as synonymous to “ideology” and “doctrine” as well for this circumstance, but the three words probably have different connotations.

Kind of like how “Doctrine of ancient Egyptians” might be considered more militant than “Ideology of ancient Egyptians,” even though they would technically mean the same thing.

I’m proposing that the dynamic has changed dramatically simply because there would be a hypothetico-deductive model (e.g. method of inquiry) as a means to test and falsify conjectures. And in the realm where philosophy may have been more prevalent in the ancient Egyptian's case, they would intertwine their own epistemology with their metaphysics of reality (but this isn’t presuming that modern Western civilization wouldn’t do the same intertwining).

So what the ancient Egyptians may have believed, and how they justified certain sense experiences with reality probably wouldn’t be compartmentalized between “scientific” and “unscientific” because how they would find ways to see if conjecture could be falsified would be a lot more rudimentary than today (i.e. they may more likely lead to begging the question, or circular reasoning because they would attribute to their prominent ideologies at the time). Lack of information to speculate alternatives and counter-arguments for them essentially, though this is all speculation on my end though.

So something like the example of vitalism would be a patchy means (for ancient Egyptians) of empiricism (e.g. ancient Egyptians potentially justifying a substances’ efficacy through its harmonic or hypnotic resonance as their justification). But if there’s something else to take into account like their language, or engaging with the environment, it’s a different matter that wouldn’t be reducible only to empiricism, nor dogma that may have been supported because of that.

Guys, I hope we cleared up the air a little bit here. This turned out to be a very interesting discussion in the end. I am glad to participate in this thread. I like all of you. :3

OP, are you saying what I think ur saying about the egyptians? It sounds like magical thinking but it makes sense in a strangely magical perspective.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

So something like the example of vitalism would be a patchy means (for ancient Egyptians) of empiricism (e.g. ancient Egyptians potentially justifying a substances’ efficacy through its harmonic or hypnotic resonance as their justification). But if there’s something else to take into account like their language, or engaging with the environment, it’s a different matter that wouldn’t be reducible only to empiricism, nor dogma that may have been supported because of that.

Well this brings my mind right back to what Voldmer was saying about Objectivity and Subjectivity.

If i assume what OP was saying about ancient egyptians' way of perceiving the world, then it is also assumed that we lost our ability to see the world as they did. Subjectively, we have degraded in that regard. If what OP says is true then the egyptians saw more of the world. They didn't use our language, but they must have developed their own experiental language system to explain their perspective. Science is definitely catching up, so no argument there from my part.. But, that is not to say that people like Sheldrake are wrong about their theories regarding our objective reality. It just so happens to be that in the limited perspective from numerous scientists these world-views are not complementary to their subjective experience. Hence, they are immediately declined and scrutinized in the name of science. Which, i do agree feels rather unfair for an honest free-thinker like Sheldrake and like OP.

Likewise, my method of approaching theories stems from a belief or a hypothesis. Then i systematically try to justify my belief in an experiental way. Ofcourse I make mistakes along the way. But does that mean that my entire scientific career has to be discredited because of a negative test result? Or a falsified belief?... NO.. ! But when ur belief does not match the status quo of mainstream science. You will naturally find more and more resistance from so called "scientists" i am sure. Who have their own agenda and their own beliefs. That is exactly what happened to Sheldrake's TED talk. It got scrutinized beyond reason and ultimately harmed his career even further. If that is not a form of censoring then it is something worse.

And yes, i equate myself with Einstein and Newton in that regard. They faced a lot of resistance from the scientific world. But the fact is, that Einstein was way more advanced than anybody else. And proceeded to theorize in the face of ridicule. Rupert Sheldrake has every right to do the same as far as I am concerned. Not that i really think i am a novel thinker like they are. But then again, my theories usually fit the scientific paradigm rather neatly.