I has commented on this rather shit opinion piece slash interview in the Guardian, who seem to be drifting into hippie-ish woo-woo lately (see also their silly support for building a Temple to Atheism, or whatever). This is what I said, I think it holds true in general so I’m putting it on my blog.
Oh dear. Two things.
First, there’s really no such thing as “scientific dogma”. <- That is a contradiction in terms. People and religions have dogmas, science doesn’t. Anybody can come up with a better theory of something unexplained, and if supported by experiment and observation, science will change its mind.
The reason there appears to be ‘dogma’ is that often a current scientific theory is based on numerous observations, and to be overturned, you often need again numerous observations. But as an example of ‘nondogma’ I would like anybody to look up the ‘experiment’ of the lightbeams of stars being bent around the sun during an eclipse in what, 1905? which was predicted by the newfangled Theory of Relativity of one Einstein, which in one fell swoop overturned what some ignoramuses would consider ‘dogma’. Science one, dogma nil.
Second, it is rather funny that science is accused here of not knowing something (the nature of dark matter) when science has 1) made the instruments to observe the universe, 2) measured dictances and speeds highly accurately across this universe, 3) invented theories that by and large accurately predict most of what is observed (see above as one example; look up the discovery of cosmic background radiation as another) 4) then – of its own accord! – found something at odds, admitted as much publicly, and then 5) tentatively suggested a working hypothesis to explain these observations, without resorting to rediculous explanations involving aliens or gods.
Nothing here has been thanks to these oh-we-are-so-clever ‘antimaterialists’ currently so highly regarded by, amongst others, The Grauniad.
Antimaterialism, at base, is non-falsifiable and therefore nonscientific.