It's salient to the topic because the blog post title implies a recent shift in the scientific zeitgeist. You cherry-picked three examples from the deep past. And look at your random examples: not a single physics article, and at least half of the 'new models' are in fields where so very little is known anyways that a new model is a low bar.

I won't say science is as dogmatic as religion, but it's far far more dogmatic than most practicing scientists would like to admit, which itself is more so than the 'lay person' or policymaker realizes.

rafaelvasco top-level comment started "Not entirely related with the article" so I don't think it's clear what can or cannot be inferred based on the blog post title.

"And look at your random examples"

Okay, then to focus just on physics for the last 12 months: https://arxiv.org/search/advanced?advanced=&terms-0-operator...

> Bremsstrahlung emission of photons during nuclear reactions inside dense stellar medium is investigated in the paper. For that, a new model of nucleus is developed, where nuclear forces combine nucleons as bound system in dependence on deep location inside compact star.

> Therefore Monte Carlo generators, like the TAUOLA program, have to facilitate precision analysis as well as confront new models that constantly emerge with the availability of high statistics experimental data.

> Dust moments: towards a new modelling of the galactic dust emission for CMB B-modes analysis

> We introduce a new model for a pairwise repulsive interaction potential of vortices in a type-II superconductor, consisting of superimposed six- and 12-fold anisotropies.

You write "I won't say science is as dogmatic as religion"

But that's the argument that rafaelvasco made, and what I was objecting to.

> it's far far more dogmatic than most practicing scientists would like to admit

Can you present any evidence of that? Certainly there's the 1950 quote by Max Planck "This experience gave me also an opportunity to learn a fact - a remarkable one, in my opinion: A new scientific truth does not triumph, by convincing, its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." or the more succinct quip "Science progresses one funeral at a time" already brought up on this thread.

But the widespread reference to that idea suggests that many practicing scientists admit there is dogmatism.

And there are plenty of examples. One I learned in the 1990s was about H. pylori. Quoting https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-doctor-who-drank...

> The medical elite thought they knew what caused ulcers and stomach cancer. But they were wrong—and didn't want to hear otherwise.

Again, these stories go around, so I don't agree with your exaggerated "far far more dogmatic" statement.

I've seen plenty of cases (in published books), related by real people, in which scientists, or academic people, face to face with raw data about a phenomenon, data that didn't make sense given what they learned, chose to ignore the data, and walk away without investigating it further. This goes contrary to what Science represents. It happens all the time. That's what I was talking about in my original post that's all. Of course it's not the absolute norm for all Scientific Community but it's abundant. This is pure dogmatism. Dogmatism originates from the same state of mind, which is Fear.

Sure. People are people, and scientists can and often are resistant to change.

(BTW, I do dislike your use of the reified term "Science". That's a mythical pedestal which nobody can stand on.)

You write "Of course it's not the absolute norm for all Scientific Community but it's abundant".

You then also mean that dogma is also not the absolute norm for religions, but it's abundant, right?

Which leads us to a quagmire, since dogma, formally speaking, "is an official system of principles or doctrines of a religion." (Quoting Wikipedia.)

Though you mean something more like "it is applied to some strong belief whose adherents are not willing to discuss it rationally." (Same Wikipedia entry.)

I gave a list of several scientific principles which were thought to be correct, then demonstrated to be incorrect, and where there are now few adherents. I could easily list more.

What are the equivalents in religion to, say, the Planck's introduction of quantum mechanics to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe problem?

Science: Merely an habit of mine of writing things upper case.

Well, you're overthinking, really. I understand. People tend to to that a lot this days. Terms, meanings etc, so many things. I only said in my original post that the resistance to change and thinking outside of the norm is as prevalent in science as is in religion. I'm not attacking or defending anything really. They're human, institutions, and so they're fallible;

Perhaps the charge can be reversed, and you are underthinking?

I was calling you out for your both-siderism. I still am.

Two switch out of having only two camps, I pose this variants:

Is resistance to change and thinking outside of the norm as prevalent in physics as it is in phrenology?

I think empirical evidence shows that phrenology - "measuring the contour of the skull can predict personality traits" to quote Wikipedia - is pure bunkum. Therefore, I think that anyone who holds that opinion does so from dogmatic faith.

But your both-siderism suggests that phrenologists are no more dogmatic than physicists. Which I disagree with - see my earlier examples where physicists rejected earlier widely-held views given evidence to the contrary.

My conclusion is that different institutions have different levels of dogmatism, so a claim of equivalence cannot easily be made without some sort of basis for the claim.

As another example, I think that as an institution evolutionary psychology has a higher level of dogmatism than solid state physics, and as evidence I can point to articles like "Is Evolutionary Psychology Possible?" by Subrena E. Smith, doi:10.1007/s13752-019-00336-4 and the lack of corresponding articles for solid state physics.

Well, shall we go our separate ways in our way of thinking then. Neither I or you are wrong. I'm just seeing the forest and you the tree.

I'm just saying there is a lot of sample bias. Have you spent 15 years in the trenches doing laboratory science? If not, I hate so say it, you really don't know. You also don't have a grasp of how silly your superficial google searches are.

No. I've spent 25 years working with research chemists, physicists, and biologists, and authored or co-authored several scientific papers.

To be fair, working on computational methods, not experimental laboratory science.

To be clear, nothing in this thread nor in the linked-to essay was specifically about laboratory science.

Your ad hominem argument is noted, and giggled at.

it's not an argument. I'm just telling you what's ahead for you. Expect to be disappointed by the scientific community in the years ahead. I'll repeat so you can giggle some more: You really don't know.

Nor you I.

You present you opinions without basis. I present my opinions with a bit of evidence. You ignore the evidence. Who is being dogmatic?