Dogma: a new perspective

[Speakpigeon]

Still looking for a definition of "dogma". You say they are motivated by something. You talk about what dogmas seem to be when people talk about them. You talk about how dogmas are usually thought of. Then you say where the word allegedly comes from. Then you say that the dogmas some think about today are " the socially generalised equivalent of our personal, individual beliefs". This is incoherent. We do have individual beliefs. Like the belief that might does not make right. Is this a dogma? There is no way to know from what you have said. You do not define the term with that mushy incoherence. "Socially generalized equivalent"? Mathematical equivalence? What the hell are you talking about?

You have a medical condition characterised by your incapacity to infer meaning beyond a literal interpretation of what posters say. You ask people to abide by a standard of explicitness you don't bother to even attempt yourself. You are invariably inarticulate yet you complain that I didn't provide a complete analysis of the notion of dogma. What are you even doing here? You think it's MIT? You couldn't do yourself what you think I didn't do and you don't even try it. There is a massive discrepancy between your constantly "demanding" attitude and the continuous mediocrity of your posts. You're the perfect idiot challenging Einstein to explain why he said "y".
EB

 

[untermensche]

You have not defined terms.

The problem is all with you.

 

[steve_bank]

You have not defined terms.

The problem is all with you.

Sounds like Trump.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Another thread where the last thing people want to do is define their terms.

Dogma?

A mother dog?

You see a dog, you see some man.

See a man, you see dogma.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Since you have no desire to define your terms I will give mine.

A dogma is a firmly held belief based only on the words of other humans.

It is not a learned belief or a belief that can be supported with reasons.

It is a belief based on nothing but human assurances.

Like the belief that humans have a soul or that markets can be free or a real infinity is possible.

 

[steve_bank]

Dogma is an ideology. A set of views, perspectives, and rules.

The Catholic catechism which details all aspects of the faith is a dogma. The Cuban version of communism is a dogma. The conservative Christians coupling of govt, economics, and religion is a dogma.

Dogmatic is being limited to a dogma excluding all other views and perspectives.

Untermench is highly dogmatic.

 

[untermensche]

Dogma is an ideology. A set of views, perspectives, and rules.

So the study of physics is a dogma?

 

[steve_bank]

Dogma is an ideology. A set of views, perspectives, and rules.

So the study of physics is a dogma?

Nice try. No. As evidenced by the last 200 years science has no claim to any absolutes and is subject to revision at anytime. Physicists at least some, are out to overturn existing theory.

Some practitioners can be dogmatic personally, but science as a whole is not. Science can not address that which can not be measured and tested. In the 19th century some thought physics was over and Newtonian physics was the end.

Along came Einstein and Plank with relativity and quantum physics. No dogma.

Claims of levitation and other supernal are not within the bounds of science until there is a demonstration.

 

[untermensche]

So your definition is worthless in other words?

Because physics is a set of views, perspectives, and rules.

 

[steve_bank]

So your definition is worthless in other words?

Because physics is a set of views, perspectives, and rules.

Science as practiced is based on mathematical quantification and experiment. Sub groups in science can be dogmatic when it comes to interpretation beyond the actual experiment, such as quantum physics and the Copenhagen interpretation. The many worlds interpretation. At that point it becomes more philosophy than physical science.

There is no singular definition of science.

Nice try again. Two strikes and no balls.