Automatic Dogmatic

The New York Times Mag is quickly becoming one of my favorite ways to kill time. One current article talks about Freeman Dyson, one of the great minds of modern times, and the notion of heresy. At the very least, it's a fascinating read about a really smart dude.

(An aside: Westy has posted about some commentary about how expertise develops. For those of you who are interested in hearing about some of the quirky habits of a genius, take a look at Richard Feynman's non-academic work, particularly Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!)

As I read through the article on Dyson, one major issue that hits me is the role of dogma. One of my favorite writers, Gregg Easterbrook of TMQ fame, has pointed out in the past that one of the dangers of environmentalism is that it is becoming a modern religion, complete with reliance on dogma, over evidence and facts, with a point of contention being global warming. Easterbrook has changed his stance on global warming, and now describes it as a legitimate concern. However, it's intersting that Dyson does no such thing. And he does so in a refreshing way.

In the past, some of you may have heard me comment on things like intelligent design as being faux-science. Dyson uses a similar argument against global warming. Where we differ is that his argument is much more eloquently and intelligently expressed, whereas I'm an idiot. Both of these cases have a common thread - the adherence to dogma, as a way to challenge dogma. Two wrongs don't make a right, but a room full of idiots can change textbooks in high schools. (See, Dyson would have never stooped so low, whereas I am an idiot).

If you read about the philosophy of scientific inquiry, you start to see some things emerge. Science is about falsifying hypotheses. Hypotheses are very specific statements. Theory building requires the stystematic and intelligent falsification of many, many hypotheses. Legitimate science has rather little room for dogma. Interestingly, I think that the best scientists are those who have strong preconcieved notions, but also have the humility to recognize when they may be wrong, and then continue to refine their beliefs.

In general, we are OK with condemning atrocities in the social/religious realm. It's easy to speak about human atrocities that stem from orthodoxy, such as the lack of rights for women in many societies, the prevalence of Islamic suicide bombers, the bombing of abortion clinics by Christian extremists, etc. However, we generally don't think about the broader issue of adherence to dogma, the nature of which stifles inquiry.

Oddly enough, I think that further understanding in both the scientific and religious realms would be facilitated by genuine inquiry, rather than reliance on dogma. I suppose that one thing that I'm dogmatic about is that adherence to dogma is harmful. But then again, who in the world is going to listen to some dogmatic principle pulled from the mouth of an idiot? Actually, don't answer that...

-Chairman