Can scientists be Dogmatic?

I've had a few posts on this site now and count myself as just a half-newbie.
One thing I notice is that people holding particular scientific theories can be as dogmatic and unopen to discussion as people holding particular religious theories.

What do you think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think some scientists can be dogmatic and unopen to discussion with other scientists holding different scientific theories. (Many scientists have had trouble accepting evidence contrary to their own "pet" ideas.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Usually when scientists seem to be acting "dogmatic" it's because they're having a discussion about a well-established theory that has loads and loads of supporting evidence with a person who:

1. Does not actually understand the theory
2. Does not understand the evidence that supports the theory
3. Sticks their fingers in their ears and shouts "You're wrong you’re wrong you're wrong" when you try to actually explain the theory and its supporting evidence.
4. (this one is optional) Has their own alternative crackpot theory that doesn't make sense and isn't supported by evidence.

Then when the scientist says "You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you if you don't want to learn," the other person responds "See! You're just as dogmatic as a religious nut! You're not willing to admit that you might be wrong! Stop oppressing me, you fascist!!!"

That's how it usually goes on this board, anyway. There are certainly scientists who are dogmatically opposed to genuine competing scientific theories that might be valid, but that's much less common - and not something that you're ever likely to see on this board, because those sorts of serious discussions just don't go on here. You have to go to real scientific conferences or read the peer-reviewed journals to find that sort of thing. Here's it's usually more along the lines of "I know that it's possible to make a perpetual motion machine because I want it to be possible!" or "I came up with a replacement for relativity even though I don't understand relativity!" or "Forget evolution, life was created by magic!"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I totally agree Chris. I am a scientist who always keeps an open mind - if i didn't, the road would be narrow, and i would throw everything into a class which can only be described as psuedo. This is why scientists fail everyday.

 

teenagers?
quantify
they chat
the crackpots are mature adults

 

Excuse me !?

A brief glance at the scientific contributions of gustav:

Your Favorite Moment(s) in Sci was..... (Multi-page thread 1 2)

/SciForums/Subcultures/Pseudoscience : A Genesis

Google - The Downslide (Multi-page thread 1 2 3)

Sci and Utube

Are universities "left-wing indoctrination factories"?

best romantic films (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4)

Shrine To My Gendy (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4)

A Tribute to JamesR

Varda's Avatar (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4)

a forum without mods (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4)

multi-boot

Eeeek! Scariest One Liners

knee jerk infractions

A Homage To Porfiry (Multi-page thread 1 2)

Child Abuse - An Indictment of Society (Multi-page thread 1 2)

Schools Out

googling sci

Television

Skinwalker - Woo Woo? or Not? (Multi-page thread 1 2 3)

Desktops - Whats On Yours?

tick tock

Funky Ass PM's (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4 5)

The Language of Love (Multi-page thread 1 2 3)

gustav the disabled (Multi-page thread 1 2)

 

what claim have i made to prompt this endeavor?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

lets determine worth right here.
ja?

lets start with the trivialization of ...."scientific contribution" and the heinous disservice rendered unto the children

/cackle

 

Can I cackle along ? lol
My apologies..

It was the "they chat" that did it..
I understand I misunderstood.. or not.. :shrug:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

no worries
i've been meaning to make peace with you anyway

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

this being sci and all...
no matter what the topic is, it is an adherence to the scientific method that is important. the elimination of fallacious constructions and.....whatnot

 

what do you make of this james?

 

I'm sorry, have you seen scientists who weren't like that?

 

Haha! Lol. The fact is that teenagers on the whole are more open to ideas. Not specialized in a way of thinking they are more open to new ideas... this is on the whole. There is always the person that has an opinion, and boy does he!

But it is very easy to understand. It is not a matter of:
"1. Does not actually understand the theory
2. Does not understand the evidence that supports the theory
3. Sticks their fingers in their ears and shouts "You're wrong you’re wrong you're wrong" when you try to actually explain the theory and its supporting evidence.
4. (this one is optional) Has their own alternative crackpot theory that doesn't make sense and isn't supported by evidence."

It is much easier. A person can have an opinion. Like a prospective. He sees the left side of the picture sort-of-thing. When another tells him he sees it wrong, or should look at it another way you get the fact that the guy needs to see it too or he will not know what you are talking about.

If I told you the sky way was purple I would guess you would disagree. After all, when you look, it is not. Look at something long enough and people can stop looking. After a while they know what is there and so don't look. It can even get irritating to them. Just ask someone that has been married a long time what his wife looks like.

The last and most important point is understanding. To think is to have many ideas. Even ideas on top of other ideas. Likened to a "Logic train" with connecting ideas there was a thought first that then led to the next. By the time you come along you may hear of the back of the train but not what started it. "I will disprove that fact" may very well do so. But will it get the engine? The driving force that powers the train? You can knock the back cars off the train all you want and never stop the train. Not seeing the front of the train (as it is long gone) you see the part that in before you now.

What is missing is understanding. "You just don't get it" is a sure sign he does not. He is missing the front of the train. Where did it all start? And most importantly, WHY, did it start. The guy one days says THIS IS A FACT! and so the train gets the full power of that conviction even years down the line. 70s years later you may never find out why he has the ideas he has, but that train of logic has the power to never give up until the man does, because it is fueled by him. That was all it was ever fueled by.

 

There are numerous crackpot theories that have made it to the mainstream of science and are not supported by evidence. AIDS isn't supported by evidence. It is supported by a bunch of people who have no real understanding of biology. Half of the people who think they are quoting Einstein misquote him and most of the other half get it only partly right. Popular literature on the mainstream of science has a lot of errors.

A lot of people don't understand the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory." A lot of people use kneejerk responses to ideas and don't even bother to follow links.

 

Scientist can be extremely dogmatic and I have found that the more they have invested in an idea the more dogmatic they become. The last thing any "expert" wants is a young scientist or worse yet a layman showing that the body of work they have devoted their careers to is in error. It effects both their egos and their income streams. If you want a current example look at the negative responses a scientist that you can get by questioning the man-made contribution to global warming, the validity of string theory, or weather the Chixulub event wiped out the dinosaurs. Don't forget that for all our talk of objectivity, scientist are people too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Most of scientists are ignoring, or even fighting against every foreign idea, no matter, whether they're fits their ideas or not. Because every new idea is making them less significant. The science has nothing to do with such stance, just the psychology.

 

Absolutely.
Any group that "communicates", or huddles, generally manages to construct some kind of doctrine; what does a "set of rules" represent? Recognising it is the issue, many don't realise when they are becoming dogmatic, precious about the use of terminology, and that they start to reward those who "follow", and cast out those who don't.
Does any of this sound familiar at all?

P.S. A comment about talking math or science with someone on a forum: how do I really know that someone who says they have a Ph.D. in Physics isn't a pizza delivery man? The only clues are responses, the only way to determine anything is by communicating.
Frankly I get pissed off at people who wave bits of paper instead of trying to explain why I'm wrong, or who keep pasting links to wikis, instead of actually coming up with a valid retort or refutation. Saying "my analysis shows you're wrong" without presenting any analysis looks pretty retarded, I think.

 

Scientists can be dogmatic just like religious people can be skeptical. In the end we're all human, and who ever is right in the end, is so in spite of that fact.

 

Having debated on a number of science forums I have found certain people to believe science infallibly true and any questioning of it to be heresy and automatically wrong, though they often cannot say why and merely point to the text book explanations as being true. We have a few such people on this site.