Dogmatism in Science

I’ve been calling medical science, and the modern application of the scientific method, “The Dogmatic Institution of Medicine/Science” etc.

The reason this statement is aptly true, that “Science is just another religion” is because of how politicised science has become. Because people hold it true in their heart of hearts as a belief that science and its methods are the only way to any form of truth. Yet, they seem to forget that Facts and Truths are different things, that Facts can be politicised very easily, and that science does not deal with truths, only facts. Also, they seem to forget that science today, and most importantly its methods today, are dependent on something being physical in order to understand it, thus ignoring many other non-physical, metaphysical, or otherwise otherworldly things (abstract concepts, “the collective unconscious”, the soul, etc.). This is not to mention the common problems facing the laboratory environment, and the limitations of the experimental process, as well as ignores errs and bad intentions on part of the scientists themselves or the people who have paid for the research.

Religion is better equipped than The Dogmatic Instutution of Science to handle the actuality of this world. At minimum it’s willing to acknowledge some things as possibility sooner than Science ever will, and that is the point: the very second a whole group of people is writing something off despite overwhelming evidence and rationale, they’ve become dogmatic.

To start off on a much simpler foot, instead of bringing up the metaphysical, here is a good example: Sugar of any kind.

In the 70s a scientist published findings that proved all forms of sugar (1) are poison, (2) processes exactly as alcohol does in the body and thus is as addictive, and (3) is causing people to gain weight, not fat, carbs, or proteins — all three of which are necessary for survival. And he was promptly laughed out of science, and for the next sixty years, our nutritional “science” was torn left and right by various companies who swore up and down that sugar is completely safe and even part of our natural body’s processes.

We are still feeling the effects of one quite simple thing that was politicised, drowned in false research and false claims, and was attempted to be wiped from history. And yet, this is not racial science, this is not gender studies, this is not remotely political, it is sugar. And yet, this massive backlash was launched by every multinational with a stake in sugar for decades to come. Many different seemingly healthier options have come about, or at least options that are advertised as healthier, where they are just as bad or worse for people. Artificial sweetener still triggers an insulin response, fructose is just as bad as any other sugar because they’re all the same. These are basic facts that took science over fifty years to figure out that they were wrong and correct, but the damage has been done and the truth has come out much later than it should have.

This says nothing good, hence why I call it “The Dogmatic Institution of Science”

The other sad part of this story is that actual work and discovery is not being done because those people with ambition to help the world with some great contribution see where their contributions go, and it’s not to benefit society or the global community at large, it goes into the pockets of the few, and it was not always this way. It was not always this shut off, was not always looked at with only one of two extreme points of view – extreme trust or extreme distrust. A healthy amount of skepticism is well and good, but so is a healthy amount of trust. Just as trust should not be innate, distrust should be, and when considering something that shakes our viewpoint on something to not write it off completely, or worse, trust it outright just because we don’t like our current paradigm.

I am not saying science is, was, and forever will be a dogmatic system, but that money and influence has made it so, and that consensus can indeed be paid for.