Science is a tool of the intelligentsia, who can often be very dogmatic and controlling. In today's world it is not in the pursuit of enlightenment, but in the pursuit of profit, a part of the capitalist structure. Progress amongst the knowledge classes is a cut throat world. It is scientists, doctors and professors that I have met over the years who have personally bemoaned the dangers inherently part of the systems they work in every day. I believe them.
Science does not exist without people and organizations. Within those cultures, dogma does exist. And so do a stubborn older group who want a status quo lest they be ousted for being outdated, and dangerous people who would do harm to the world with the knowledge they have.
As pointed out, a thousand years from now people will look back at our sciences as primitive, and they will still be discuss the works of philosophers, prophets, poets and artists with gravity - what they bring us is ageless. They all draw from that fire that burns deep within humans, past present and future; that very thing that made us rise above apes, and opened the entire universe to us for study.
Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill
You`re still missing the point. A science is never a dogma. What you are stating is a Paradigma. A scientific paradigma is where one scientific pursuit gets abandoned for the relief of a better and more valuable approach. That said its still not dogmatic, because if you had any clue of what you were saying then you would consider the fact that within science - even medicine - exist many paradigmas that live parallel, touch each other, are contrary to each other, are opposite to each other. SO does philosophy. And ever heard of the fact that psychology brings philosophy AND natural science together? because psychology is the ONLY strain of social science where there is a Natural science (statistics) AND a philosophical strain (base philosophy) as well.
ANd what you say about philosophers is untrue as well, because said philosophers ( and i have studied also philosophy as part in my psychological approach since i do not like the nature science aka statistics) are only and ONLY historically valid and their value does only somewhat transcend the time they have been written in. You always - and i mean always - have to consider the social time , the social climate and the culture and the historical perspective a philosophy has been written in. Also the books you read are written within some socio-ethno-historical context and this context limits EVERY value and not just the value of science. What is as seen very classy and state of art in our culture is nothing of value in a different culture since the measurements are not the same. That said, i do believe that given the socio-ethno-cultural historical aspects of writings, you can also benefit now from science that has been made centuries ago.
Madame Curie once risked her life for her scientific purposes. YOu really think that is of NO value today anymore, just because we have different methods that are based on said values?
With philosophy it is the same. It gets broader and even Plato is outdated and overcome. There is better on the market. Study philosophy, then you will see. Just because Plato is still discussed does not mean that these discussions are not ones that portray his values in our perspective and with broader understanding.
ANd this is simply NOT happening with Religion. A religious core value is PER SE unquestionable. A science is ALWAYS questionable. YOu can always make another paradigma. You just are not smart enough, but that said does not mean that just because you are not a scientist and you don`t have the brain to put up a paradigma does not make everyone who does so a dogmatist. That is simply untrue. There are fights of power and intellectual qualities within sciences as well, but that is considered a paradigm shift. A religion is simply a believe. You cannot question anything a core value gets from.
Where do you get your facts from? You state things that are simply untrue and i wonder where you have these references from. I think in a valuable discussion its always good to bring references. I usually do that, since a POV can be completely different given different texts.
Also you should consider that a POV is always limited by certain measurements. What you do is bringing typical not very intellectual "all inclusive sentences" that hold absolutely no value. You have to bring references to fill out your point. Everyone else seems to do that. You are plain and simply wrong and i am afraid if you study at a university i have to have tough talk with your professors :-) (just kidding)
I am waiting for references where you come to the conclusion that science is dogmatic? Its simply untrue. Here some very important reference on paradigmas and paradigma shifts within science. Nothing of it is ever dogmatic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn
ps: and just because you banged some scientists who told you of some dangers within scientific references does not make you entitled to post - excuse me - twisted facts. I have also encountered numerous psychoanalysts who told me the dangers of their area of work, but that does not make the whole area of work PER SE ridiculous. YOu have to first proof to be an intellectual to be able to criticise scientists. If you do so, bring points, evaluate them and make better ones. But just parrotting your clients and then thinking you are smart is not intellectual. That is the same like a provider who screws attorneys and then thinks she knows something of the legal fields. I have had mostly attorneys in my private area as lovers and boyfriends and boy did they tell me things. But fact is - you are not entitled to say these things, because you lack the points they seem to make.
And a point is not "oh someone said to me and i believe them" - that is - ha ha ha - i mean sorry??? People say all sorts of things all day long, such gibberish does not make intellectual discussions profound value, it makes just your arguments more questionable, because "he who believes has not learned to question" . Sorry to say. In europe we have a saying that say :"who does not know must believe".
And the arrogance you exuberate can definetely only come from a lack of knowledge because - believe me - i know professors of university who are three times as old as you are and numerous times as smart and educated with published work and they would NEVER ever belittle a whole area of work that way. Criticising a scientific field on valuable points and stated facts is something different than the respectless and unfounded gibberish you utter out of your mouth. You don`t know enough and you are not educated enough and that is plain visible in your statements. So , bring valuable points and references, but allinclusive statements and "oh i know a few scientists and i believe them" does not entitle you to get a MA in any field. Do the research! Learn the basics - then make profound statements!
Nina
ps: and it is interesting that you seem to happen to know what people will value in a 1000 years from now? Have you been abducted by a spaceship - then brainwashed with future time and then been brought back?? I mean your statements are just HILARIOUS!!!
and religions are also based on pursuing of profit`? and religious science pursues enlightment? ANd philosophy (WHICH IS ALSO A SCIENCE!!!!!! PLEASE NOTE) does pursue enlightement.
and as an escort stating you are against capitalism is a bit gross. Then why do you not date your clients for free? And bring them pleasure and enlightement. YOu are participating in a capitalistic perversion already , so you are doing the same like you accuse scientists to do. They also want their bucks for their work, not only YOU do so?? Hello??