Why Presuppositions Can Advance Science, While Dogma Hinders

A scientist’s presupposition can support productive inquiries, but when presuppositions slide into dogma science is harmed.

Photo by Eugene Zhyvchik on Unsplash. It’s completely natural for scientists, like the rest of us, to start an inquiry with presuppositions. It’s not only natural, it can help achieve great results. But, sometimes presuppositions become so firmly fixed that they transition to dogma. That’s when the trouble with doing good science begins.

It’s doubtful very many of us claim to have no presuppositions. We also assume that scientists hold presuppositions. But, when it comes to doing science, are presuppositions held by scientists good or bad? Here we suggest they can support good scientific inquiry but when presuppositions become too strongly held against compelling evidence they become dogma. And dogma hinders science.

Presuppositions are those beliefs or convictions that direct our inquiries and determine or greatly influence our interpretation of the results of those inquiries. For example, a Young Earth Creationist’s presupposition is that the Bible is the final authority over all matters of faith and fact and the literal interpretation of Genesis is necessary to preserve that authority. That presupposition is going to incline those holding it toward some inquiries about nature and away from others. They will naturally seek to investigate those lines of thought they believe will support their position. It will also lead toward some interpretations of the evidence and away from others. Radiometric dating which provides evidence for age of the earth, for example, must be discounted or shown to be in error if the presupposition…