[Bluestrike2]

But it's not dogma. Dogmatic principles are one "laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." 'Science'--with a capital 'S', denoting a specific authority--doesn't say that the laws of motion are accurate. Years of empirical research, with repeated and verifiable confirmations by other scientists, do. The laws of motion are held to be true not because scientific authorities say they are so, but because of the method by which they came to be able to say it.

It's a subtle distinction, but an incredibly important one. But that same subtlety can sometimes be lost when it's discussed by the general public. The policy debate over climate change is an excellent example. Speaking strictly in terms of the often quoted statement that "97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree," [0][1] it's clear how different individuals can read very different meanings into that statement. For the scientists themselves, while the statement is referring to scientists as individuals, it's based on the published research that informed their views. Amongst the general public, particularly those who don't accept anthropogenic climate change, the statement is understood as referring to the beliefs of the individuals. It's taken as an appeal to authority (and it doesn't help that many politicians and activists who want to take action often use it as such). The same statement is understood in two very different ways based on the reader's background and understanding of what the scientific method actually is.

Returning to the subject of the em-drive, the reason for skepticism is precisely because it flies in the face of our basic understanding of the physical world. The more well-founded a theory is, the greater the burden on any new findings that would seem to contradict it. That's as it should be. But if those new findings hold up under scrutiny and are verified, even a basic, fundamental law can and will be revised. That's how the scientific method works.

Personally, I'd love for the em-drive to be proven if only because it would represent such a fascinating shift in physics. To say nothing of potential applications. But I'm inherently skeptical. Not because of a dogmatic acceptance of the laws of motion, but because those laws are already so well-supported.

0. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ 1. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048...