quick ramble:
paradoxically religion often leads to the emergence of spirituality through small esoteric sects, but holds back the greater society from true spiritual maturation because of dogma. Once society sees the potential of spirituality and metaphysics for humanity’s growth, and science as a means through which we can explore it, a new world will emerge. this starts with a reinstating of the humanities as an important field of study, not just STEM, and the dissolution of the belief that reality is material.
A bridge towards these goals is Iain Mcgilchrists’ research on hemispheric lateralisation. im practically the forum’s mcgilchrist spokesperson at this point. Its a bridge because the evidence he cites is empirical and has big implications, of which Mcgilchrist explores in his book. A big point he makes is the mindset that a lot of people have towards life and science and art etc is shared amongst those with damage or under activity in the right hemisphere
.
prompt: explain how a dogmatic approach to science resembles a religion
Unquestionable doctrines: Just as religions have core tenets that followers are expected to accept without question, dogmatic science may treat certain theories or principles as absolute truths. These “scientific dogmas” become resistant to challenge or revision, much like religious doctrines.
Hierarchical authority: Similar to religious institutions with their priests and popes, dogmatic science may establish a rigid hierarchy where senior scientists or prestigious institutions are viewed as unassailable authorities. Their word is taken as gospel, discouraging independent critical thinking.
Heresy and excommunication: In religions, heretics are often ostracized or punished. Similarly, scientists who challenge established theories in a dogmatic scientific community might face professional isolation, loss of funding, or damage to their reputations - a form of scientific excommunication.
Sacred texts: Religious scriptures are often treated as infallible. In dogmatic science, certain foundational papers, textbooks, or the works of revered scientists might be afforded a similar status, becoming beyond reproach or critical examination.
Rituals and orthodoxy: Religious practices often involve specific rituals. In dogmatic science, strict adherence to particular methodologies or ways of presenting findings might take precedence over the actual substance of the work, similar to religious orthodoxy.
Conversion and proselytizing: Like religious evangelism, dogmatic science might aggressively push for the acceptance of specific viewpoints, rather than encouraging open inquiry and critical evaluation of evidence.
Faith-based acceptance: Religious beliefs are often based on faith rather than empirical evidence. In dogmatic science, certain theories might be accepted based on the reputation of their proposers or their popularity, rather than on robust evidence.
Prophets and saints: Religions often elevate certain figures to prophet or saint status. Dogmatic science might similarly idolize certain scientists, placing their ideas beyond criticism.
Resistance to change: Many religions struggle with adapting to new social or scientific realities. Similarly, dogmatic science might cling to established theories even in the face of contradictory evidence, resisting necessary paradigm shifts.
Moral authority: Religions often claim to be sources of moral guidance. Dogmatic science might overstep its bounds by claiming that scientific findings inherently dictate moral or ethical imperatives.
This dogmatic approach fundamentally contradicts the principles of genuine scientific inquiry, which values skepticism, evidence-based reasoning, and openness to new ideas. True science should be self-correcting, always open to revision based on new evidence, and encourage questioning and critical thinking rather than blind acceptance of authority or established ideas
.
analyse the current state of science as it is today and determine whether it is taking into consideration scientific dogma
The current state of science is highly dynamic, marked by rapid advancements in technology, interdisciplinary research, and a growing emphasis on data-driven insights. However, even with these strides, scientific dogma still exists in some forms, potentially constraining exploration in certain fields.
Openness and Peer Review: Today, science is more open than ever, with the rise of open-access journals, preprints, and collaborative research platforms. These foster transparency and challenge established views. However, the peer review process can still act as a gatekeeper, reinforcing established norms. Papers that contradict prevailing theories may face greater scrutiny, not always due to flaws but because they challenge deeply ingrained beliefs.
Replication Crisis and Reproducibility: The replication crisis, particularly in fields like psychology, biology, and medicine, has exposed weaknesses in how science has been conducted. This has led to a growing movement emphasizing reproducibility and rigor. While this challenges past dogmas, it has also revealed how long-standing assumptions can persist in research practices.
Funding and Paradigm Bias: Scientific funding often favors established theories and proven methods, creating inertia that can resist radical innovation. Emerging fields like quantum biology or psychedelic medicine sometimes struggle for funding because they challenge mainstream perspectives. As a result, researchers may conform to established paradigms, unintentionally reinforcing dogma to secure grants or career advancement.
Interdisciplinary Push: Modern science is increasingly interdisciplinary, which helps break down traditional silos. Fields like neuroscience, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology are benefiting from cross-pollination, enabling breakthroughs that might have been hindered by rigid disciplinary dogma. However, within specific domains, particularly in highly specialized fields, old ideas can still persist and limit exploration.
Pace of Change: The pace of technological advancement—such as AI, genomics, and CRISPR—pushes boundaries, often forcing a reevaluation of old principles. But rapid change can also entrench skepticism toward disruptive ideas, as it takes time for new evidence to accumulate and for institutions to adapt.
In conclusion, while modern science is making great strides in breaking down old barriers, scientific dogma remains a subtle force. The balance between questioning established knowledge and adhering to time-tested frameworks is delicate. More inclusive, diverse, and open approaches are helping to erode dogma, but it still influences the direction and funding of research, shaping which questions are asked and which innovations are pursued.