[alexithym]

It's incorrect to compare science to religion.

In science, there are no facts that are presented as being undeniably true. Rather, all scientific facts can be independently derived and understood to be true by any person. This emphasis on reproducibility means that no scientific lesson has to be taken on faith, eliminating any sense of dogma.

Furthermore, as our understanding of the world improves, we often challenge dated scientific ideas and prove them wrong using empirical evidence. If science was truly dogmatic this would never happen, because dogma requires facts to be presented as being undeniably true, forever.

[SimplyUnknown]

If reproducibility is so important then why are we in the middle of a reproducibility crisis? [1]

If reproducibility was really that important then the scientific body would be more focused on replicating results rather racing to being the first group to publish an idea or securing funding.

Scientific foundations are seldom challenged or refuted. The last paradigm shift in physics or maths was over one hundred years ago. And as soon as someone challenges them (as the author does) the criticisms are refuted.

Say what you will, but science is mostly a social affair. Works of prominent groups are more likely to be accepted than works of groups with less status in the scientific community. Belief in scientific work may not rely on faith, but it is a far cry from pure scientific method.

I'm not trying to be cynical here and do think a good scientific body advances humanity, but the current state of the scientific community might be closer to religion than one hopes it should be.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

[clucas]

So, first off, according to the wikipedia article you linked, physics isn't really involved in the replication crisis.

Second, re: the scientific community being closer to religion: I think you could analogize the replication crisis to religious movements like the Protestant reformation, where a large-ish group of Christians said "whoa, we're way off base here, we need to get back to the fundamentals." But when a religion does that, it's going back to scripture, or whatever. In the replication crisis, going back to fundamentals means basing our understanding on reproducible experiments - i.e. predicting based on a model, then testing to see if your prediction is right, thus potentially validating the model.

The fact that reproducibility is the first principle that causes a crisis in science leads me to believe that science is in a better place than religion to discover fundamental truths, at least about the physical world. So in this sense, the replication crisis is exactly what proves that science is not like religion.

(If you want to argue that religion is more useful than psychology or sociology when it comes to understanding people's motivations and ways to make them behave productively... I would sign up for your newsletter, but I wouldn't join your religion.)

[alexithym]

Because we are human, science in practice will always fall short of perfect adherence of the scientific method. However, the fact remains that the two are fundamentally different, because one is existentially founded on dogma, and the other isn't.

[jaredgorski]

“the fact remains ... one is existentially founded on dogma, and the other isn’t.”

You’ve responded to a rhetorical challenge against your position by essentially stating your position, which is circular thinking. It’s not a “fact” or even a forgone conclusion that religion is, by necessity, more dogmatic than any other human activity. Humans engage in political dogmatism every day, for example, perhaps even rivaling religion in certain regions and at certain points. Non-religious dogma has also fueled many recent wars.

[alexithym]

I didn't restate my position - I made the observation that the human practice of science falls short of being devoid of dogmatism, but that that doesn't make science itself dogmatic.

I never made the claim that religion is more dogmatic than other human activity, only that it is certainly more dogmatic than science. Nothing in science is presented as being incontrovertibly true, while religion existentially depends upon the undeniable existence of God. No proof is offered for the existence of this God, making religion dogmatic.

[rafaelvasco]

It's absolutely correct as they both originate from the same place: The need to understand reality. They just took different approaches. Both have a lot to give to one another. I mean religion in a general sense. Those that say otherwise are too focused on one side and ignoring the other. Both of them have distortions, dogmas and bs of course.

[alexithym]

I agree that people could benefit from an understanding of both, but I'm finding it hard to see how the actual body of scientific work could be improved by incorporating religion in any way.

[rafaelvasco]

Not religion, but there are ancient texts, that are sacred for several religions, not the Bible, which contain a lot of Wisdom and insight that i think science could benefit upon by exploring and studying it, instead of ignoring it as mere mysticism. Well there are/were some scientists exploring it but they're the minority;

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> In science, there are no facts that are presented as being undeniably true.

Not quite correct. Science and math are full of axioms.