Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Here it would be necessary to clarify what these very dogmas are. Let's start with religious ones, it's easier that way. Since our religions are mostly collective in nature, people tend to somehow synchronize their ideas about the metaphysical. They argue and look for options. They find it. Successful ones become dogmas, which are essentially a marker like this:”if you want to be in our sandbox, here's the charter”. A symbol of faith, for example. I have a hypothesis that all those dogmas that seem completely unimportant to us now – what does it matter how many natures Christ has? – in the context of their time, they had quite obvious consequences for earth life. Offhand – among other trends of Christianity in the first centuries of our era, there were docetists who believed that
I would venture to suggest that we would live in a very different world if they had won the argument about the nature of Christ.
This is about religion, now about science. Here it would be necessary to separate those things that are dogmas from those that are purely figurative dogmas. The central dogma of molecular biology is figuratively a dogma, it is derived empirically and can be refuted. If this happens one day, we will not have this dogma, it will go to the dump of history. There are plenty of other similar things that are figuratively dogma, it just highlights the breadth of consensus about them. And what could be a scientific dogma in the literal sense of the word? Well, for example, a scientist must believe in the knowability of the world, if not, then it will be hard for him. And these dogmas, by and large, are no different from religious ones – they are just the fruit of thinking about how to solve this or that philosophical question, they are in the place where they are, because there were disputes and polemics and one of the options won it, they can also be revised if a more elegant version of solutions appears. That is, both scientific and religious dogmas – they are not random, they are always a solution to a problem, just a problem such that it is impossible to find the right answer to it, but you can find a successful one.
And the average person who is far from these theological / philosophical thoughts simply accepts it on faith, because he was told so, and in this sense there is also not a big difference between scientism and Christianity.
“The philosophical basis of the modern scientific method is logical positivism (neopositivism) and postpositivism. Both of these trends consider observation (experience, experiment) to be the criterion of truth, but they differ in their interpretations of which hypothesis can be considered scientific.” If the verification principle itself is only a protocol proposal, then perhaps we should first verify the verification principle itself. If it is scientific, it must be verified. If it cannot be verified (and it cannot be verified), then it is unscientific. It turns out a vicious circle. The principle of verification turns out to be dogmatic, metaphysical, philosophical, but not scientific, because it itself is unverifiable.
The “scientific” method includes methods of studying phenomena, systematization, and correction of new and previously acquired knowledge. Conclusions and conclusions are drawn using rules and principles of reasoning based on empirical (observed and measured) data about the object[2]. Data collection is based on observations and experiments. To explain the observed facts, hypotheses are put forward and theories are built, on the basis of which, in turn, a model of the object under study is built”(quotes from: Wikipedia). In addition, the essence of the objective method of cognition, implied by Galileo: describes the relationship of the qualities of one selected” element ” of the world to another. Modern science has limited the description of the relations of their qualities. So, for example, one unknown correlates with another in such a way that the “essence” of the objects being studied, i.e. the very way of their being, is “put out of brackets” and only their “form as a relationship of qualities” remains, calling it an “objectively measurable quantity” (Belyakov A.V., Faith or reason? On the possibilities of new metaphysics, Almanac No. 7 St. Petersburg, 1998, pp. 81-92). Thus, objectification is possible only under the assumption that the metaphysical basis of being is absolutely self – identical “ideal” matter”, which is merged with the person himself. Therefore, the Scientific method of research involves the method of studying the doctrine of bodies located only in a closed space. Religion trusts God, but the knowledge of God is completely impossible(a priori concept). Philosophy trusts Objective Reason and a person who has a rational soul that has a connection with the intelligible world. Therefore, religious dogmatism is based on a philosophy whose method is not experiment, but reason. The senses know only the individual, and therefore do not give the true knowledge that is given by the mind, the intellectual faculty of man, which, without being an act of some bodily organ, does not know the individual, not the individual, but the essential principle of matter, which cannot be known by the experience of an experiment. That is, the essential principle of human nature is abstracted by the mental faculty from matter (as a property of the soul). Thomas Aquinas says that universals exist both in things and after things, i.e. in the human mind(innate ideas, Kant's “remembering”). However, since there are no verification criteria, contradictions arise again. Therefore, scientific dogmatism used the Hegelian philosophy of moving to another level of knowledge, since critical judgments on the same problem, on the same question of knowledge, are again made, aimed at identifying shortcomings in scientific research. “Critical thinking is the quality of thinking that allows you to carry out a strict assessment of the results of mental activity, find their strengths and weaknesses, and prove the truth of the propositions put forward”(Wikipedia).
Dialectic is the ability to think correctly. But, of the two competing arguments, it is customary to consider one argument as correct, and the other as incorrect, as a method of logical analysis. But in scientific dogmatism, in particular, in Hegel ,the “removal of contradictions” is carried out differently. Dialectics discovers opposites, discovers their connection, the mutual transition of opposites into each other. But only speculative logic removes the opposites. The term “withdrawal” is one of the most complex concepts in Hegelian philosophy; translated into ordinary human language, it means such an operation with opposites, in which the contradiction in these opposites does not disappear, but, passing to another level, is resolved, as it were. Therefore, scientific dogmatism has reached the “absolute transition to another level” and absolute negation. Therefore, the Hegelian system gave rise to a denial of itself in the form of Feuerbach's philosophy. Spinoza noted that everything in the world is connected by cause and effect. He absolutized this causality and said that the world is based on substance, “the cause of itself.” Descartes noticed that a person always thinks, he absolutized this thinking and said that there is nothing but thinking, built an ideal rationalistic system. Diderot noticed that only matter exists in the world, and he absolutized this by saying that there is no ideal at all. Lametri took this to the point of absurdity, saying that a person is also a machine. Later, some materialists (for example, Buchner, Moleschott) even began to assert that human thought is a certain kind of matter, that just as the liver produces bile, so the brain produces thought – a product of the human body. Marx and Engels started from this method and said that one-sidedness of philosophy can now be avoided. Now, with the discovery of dialectics, it is not necessary to start from some axiom, as all philosophers were forced to do before. Like Spinoza, Descartes, Bacon, Kant, Fichte and other philosophers, Marx and Engels, without noticing it, build their philosophy to an axiom, and this axiom is a scientific truth that is firmly dogmatized .
Science is about what is. Religion is about what will happen. At the next stage of evolution. People themselves must invent the next stage of evolution. Otherwise, why would we be given such a powerful fantasy?
Science is an introduction to some generally accepted framework of the process of cognition of the present world. Religion is the same for the NEXT world.
What is important here is the resonance of human fantasy with the plans of God, the Force that unleashed evolution.
To simplify the functions, we split them up:
Atheism – let's assume that there is no God. What can we invent then?- virtual world.
Islam and Judaism are the other extreme. God will invent everything himself.
Christianity-docking.
“The philosophical basis of the modern scientific method is logical positivism (neopositivism) and postpositivism. Both of these trends consider observation (experience, experiment) to be the criterion of truth, but they differ in their interpretations of which hypothesis can be considered scientific.” If the verification principle itself is only a protocol proposal, then perhaps we should first verify the verification principle itself. If it is scientific, it must be verified. If it cannot be verified (and it cannot be verified), then it is unscientific. It turns out a vicious circle. The principle of verification turns out to be dogmatic, metaphysical, philosophical, but not scientific, because it itself is unverifiable.
The “scientific” method includes methods of studying phenomena, systematization, and correction of new and previously acquired knowledge. Conclusions and conclusions are drawn using rules and principles of reasoning based on empirical (observed and measured) data about the object[2]. Data collection is based on observations and experiments. To explain the observed facts, hypotheses are put forward and theories are built, on the basis of which, in turn, a model of the object under study is built”(quotes from: Wikipedia). In addition, the essence of the objective method of cognition, implied by Galileo: describes the relationship of the qualities of one selected” element ” of the world to another. Modern science has limited the description of the relations of their qualities. So, for example, one unknown correlates with another in such a way that the “essence” of the objects being studied, i.e. the very way of their being, is “put out of brackets” and only their “form as a relationship of qualities” remains, calling it an “objectively measurable quantity” (Belyakov A.V., Faith or reason? On the possibilities of new metaphysics, Almanac No. 7 St. Petersburg, 1998, pp. 81-92). Thus, objectification is possible only under the assumption that the metaphysical basis of being is absolutely self – identical “ideal” matter”, which is merged with the person himself. Therefore, the Scientific method of research involves the method of studying the doctrine of bodies located only in a closed space. Religion trusts God, but the knowledge of God is completely impossible(a priori concept). Philosophy trusts Objective Reason and a person who has a rational soul that has a connection with the intelligible world. Therefore, religious dogmatism is based on a philosophy whose method is not experiment, but reason. The senses know only the individual, and therefore do not give the true knowledge that is given by the mind, the intellectual faculty of man, which, without being an act of some bodily organ, does not know the individual, not the individual, but the essential principle of matter, which cannot be known by the experience of an experiment. That is, the essential principle of human nature is abstracted by the mental faculty from matter (as a property of the soul). Thomas Aquinas says that universals exist both in things and after things, i.e. in the human mind(innate ideas, Kant's “remembering”). However, since there are no verification criteria, contradictions arise again. Therefore, scientific dogmatism used the Hegelian philosophy of moving to another level of knowledge, since critical judgments on the same problem, on the same question of knowledge, are again made, aimed at identifying shortcomings in scientific research. “Critical thinking is the quality of thinking that allows you to carry out a strict assessment of the results of mental activity, find their strengths and weaknesses, and prove the truth of the propositions put forward”(Wikipedia).
Dialectic is the ability to think correctly. But, of the two competing arguments, it is customary to consider one argument as correct, and the other as incorrect, as a method of logical analysis. But in scientific dogmatism, in particular, in Hegel ,the “removal of contradictions” is carried out differently. Dialectics discovers opposites, discovers their connection, the mutual transition of opposites into each other. But only speculative logic removes the opposites. The term “withdrawal” is one of the most complex concepts in Hegelian philosophy; translated into ordinary human language, it means such an operation with opposites, in which the contradiction in these opposites does not disappear, but, passing to another level, is resolved, as it were. Therefore, scientific dogmatism has reached the “absolute transition to another level” and absolute negation. Therefore, the Hegelian system gave rise to a denial of itself in the form of Feuerbach's philosophy. Spinoza noted that everything in the world is connected by cause and effect. He absolutized this causality and said that the world is based on substance, “the cause of itself.” Descartes noticed that a person always thinks, he absolutized this thinking and said that there is nothing but thinking, built an ideal rationalistic system. Diderot noticed that only matter exists in the world, and he absolutized this by saying that there is no ideal at all. Lametri took this to the point of absurdity, saying that a person is also a machine. Later, some materialists (for example, Buchner, Moleschott) even began to assert that human thought is a certain kind of matter, that just as the liver produces bile, so the brain produces thought – a product of the human body. Marx and Engels started from this method and said that one-sidedness of philosophy can now be avoided. Now, with the discovery of dialectics, it is not necessary to start from some axiom, as all philosophers were forced to do before. Like Spinoza, Descartes, Bacon, Kant, Fichte and other philosophers, Marx and Engels, without noticing it, build their philosophy to an axiom, and this axiom is a scientific truth that is firmly dogmatized. Religious dogmatism has a strictly philosophical foundation, which does not contradict theology and the revelation of Holy Scripture, in which God reveals Himself to man. The method of philosophy research is pure reason. The knowledge of Truth (in Aristotle) is realized through the human mind, which arises at the moment of pure contemplation in the process of cataleptic grasping. Scientific dogmatism is based on the Marxist – Leninist theory. The method of scientific knowledge is empirical experience. Scientific dogmatism is based on a materialistic theory (potentially possible, variable, tending to the disintegration of matter). The philosophical teaching of Marx and Engels is based on an atheistic view of the world in which there are no absolute truths, and the laws of nature, according to Engels in his works “Dialectics of Nature” and “Anti-Duhring”, are not absolute in themselves, and change. The goal of scientific knowledge is to search for practical truth: “what is useful”. Marx: what has been proven by experience is true.” Therefore, various scientific theories often arise, and in general, many personalists in relation to the criterion of scientific knowledge tended to conventionalism, i.e., the doctrine of agreement, according to which the truths of science are truths insofar as people have agreed to consider them as such. Therefore, the dogma of science is atheism, and truth belongs to science. The dogma of religion and classical philosophy praises the recognition of the theory of the existence of God – the Creator, as a Necessary Condition and Actual Reality for the origin and existence of our space-time, since the truth is contained only in God as the Absolute Source of all good.
The axiom of the scientific method does not have the character of a “dogma”, it is simply a basic level for communication and reasoning between reasonable people – true ideas about the real world are consistent.
All.
This axiom has the character of absolute evidence, because without it, communication-discussion – your question-any answers to it – any arguments and arguments are generally meaningless. At the same time, opposite ” truths “are impossible, that's the whole” dogma ” which is not a dogma at all, but the basis of sanity.
All other knowability, objectivity, independence of the result of a scientific experiment from the observer's personality, and other supposedly “dogmatic” but in fact completely logical parts of the Scientific Method of Cognition already follow from it (and are not postulated at all).
Well, in religions exactly the opposite, a set of ridiculous illogical dogmas in which you have to blindly believe.
As the founding fathers said, I believe because it is absurd ))
Modern believers of little faith can no longer do this, they need to prove and ask questions )) This leads to the opposition of Science and Religion.
I honestly don't remember that there were any dogmas in science. There are axioms that can very often be proved or disproved, especially mathematical ones, there are theories and theorems.�
But the key difference between all this diversity and religious dogmas is that they can and should be proved. No science is an exception to this rule.
The main difference is that any scientific dogma can be revised or even canceled. The whole question is the number of facts that contradict this dogma and the availability of an alternative theory that explains a wider range of phenomena than the existing one. It would seem that the theory of fixed continents is unshakeable (in all senses) – but no, satellite observations and the study of the ocean floor have led to the fact that it has now been replaced by global plate tectonics.
Basically nothing. A dogma is a dogma – an outdated and already harmful rule, law, and attitude. In any field, they hinder progress, act as a factor hostile to everything new, prevent the introduction of new views, new concepts, and teachings. It is bad when something unusual, but meeting the dogma, is dismissed from the threshold, declared harmful, or God-defying, without any analysis, or at least objective familiarization (like my theory, for example).