Scientific Dogma and Religion

[HydrogenBond]

The question I would like to raise is, when science is disproved by the data and continues to linger as the big dog of the pack does it stop becoming science and start becoming religion?

 

For example, a big bang continuum expansion can not accommodate the rapid formation of universal superstructure, some spiral galaxies, or the existence of galaxies that formed within the first billion years of creation; quickly began making stars, etc.. Yet big bang is still the majority meter stick or the Big Dog of creation. Valid science or common sense is not keeping this theory alive, rather something analogous to faith. As long as the earth was the center of the universe, there was no room for astro-science to evolve, because good data was considered speculation due to the entrenched dogma; the new data did not fit into the historical expectations created by the dogma.

[Aquagem]

The question I would like to raise is, when science is disproved by the data and continues to linger as the big dog of the pack does it stop becoming science and start becoming religion?

 

For example, a big bang continuum expansion can not accommodate the rapid formation of universal superstructure, some spiral galaxies, or the existence of galaxies that formed within the first billion years of creation...

 

Science, as a living evolutionary process, does not change overnight. The Copernican worldview became accepted over a century or so as more and more good testing showed it to be literally true. In the meantime, those who stuck with Ptolemy (including Tycho's hybrid view) sought to disprove it, failed, and finally gave up (probably died, actually). If we were to accept a new theory immediately, especially about things as unsubstantiated as the outer reaches of cosmology, we would be making "leaps of faith", not incremental advances, in our knowledge.

 

If a scientific principle becomes dogma, true dogma - promulgated by and enforced by a priesthood of believers who have lost all contact with the truth of the principle - then it might be considered a religious decision. But hanging onto Newtonian mechanics, say, is not such a dogma -- it works, and it's far too valuable to dump it in favor of relativistic mechanics, which would be like cutting butter with a chainsaw at earthly dimensions. The old guys have their arguments in favor of old ideas. They (the ideas) have to be displaced one by one through better observation and better support for an alternate theory. Religion allows no such peaceful change -- blood flows, pillories are lit -- and no progress is made.

[HydrogenBond]

The example of Copernicus is a good one. One hundred years was wasted with an obsolete theory. One hundred years of house of cards science based on a faulty foundation premise that should have been removed 100 years earlier. They waited into the house of cards fell before they would act on scientific reality. Those in charge were either out of touch with scientific reality and were smart enough to be able to linger a fantasy of science for 100 years. The incumbant theory should be under the same constraints as all the challengers. If someone can find a flaw within the incumbant theory, it should be required to go back on the drawing board until it is fixed, then resubmitted.

 

The problem is the house of cards effect. If we pull out the base card so it can go back to the drawing board, everything that is dependant on that foundation theory would also need to go back to the drawing board, since it is all connected. These other cards may not interface very well with another theory or even the original theory, if it is modified too much. We have become beaurocratic science too fat to be able to adapt to change. I don't call that science but psuedo-science. Science should be able to move as fast as data and logical arguments are generated.