Insights
Our innate tendency to seek patterns and impose rules on the natural world gives rise to
dogmatic thinking, or more broadly, dogmatic behavior. We expect orderliness in everything and
strive to uncover it, even in places where it may not exist. Events that resist fitting into these
perceived patterns are often dismissed as mere “background noise.” We hold onto our
preconceived notions, even when it becomes clear that they no longer apply, and we should
reconsider them. Yet, this dogmatic approach serves a purpose. It is a response to situations
that demand we push our hypotheses onto the world to make sense of it. Furthermore, this
rigidity allows us to edge closer to good theories incrementally, through approximation. Were we
to concede defeat too quickly, we might abandon ideas that were, in fact, almost correct.
This dogmatism reflects a strong belief, whereas a critical mindset—one that embraces doubt,
seeks modification, and calls for constant testing—signals a belief that is more flexible or
tentative. According to Hume and prevailing theories, the strength of belief should correlate with
repetition, gaining intensity with experience, particularly in more advanced individuals. Yet,
paradoxically, it is dogmatic thinking—an unchecked desire to find order and a fascination with
rituals and repetition—that is most often seen in children or early civilizations. With greater
experience and maturity, however, people tend to cultivate an attitude of skepticism and critique
rather than blind adherence to rules.
While my critique of Hume’s psychological theory may seem removed from the philosophy of
science, the distinction between dogmatic and critical thinking lies at the heart of scientific
inquiry. Dogmatic thinking is characterized by a drive to verify our theories, often to the extent of
ignoring contrary evidence, whereas critical thinking thrives on testing, refutation, and
falsification. This difference suggests a direct link between the critical attitude and the scientific
mindset, and between the dogmatic attitude and what we might call pseudo-scientific thinking.
The pseudo-scientific mindset, being more primitive, logically precedes the scientific one. In
fact, science does not oppose dogmatic thinking outright but builds upon it. Criticism must be
aimed at existing, entrenched beliefs, which are often held dogmatically.
Thus, the foundations of science are rooted in myths, and its progress begins not with gathering
observations or conducting experiments, but with the critical examination of these myths and
traditional practices. What separates the scientific tradition from its pre-scientific counterpart is
its dual nature: while both traditions pass down theories, science also instills a critical approach
to those theories. Theories are not passed down as untouchable truths but as proposals open to
discussion and improvement.
This critical attitude—the tradition of open debate aimed at identifying and correcting the flaws
in our theories—embodies rationality. From this perspective, all theories remain provisional,
conjectural, or hypothetical, no matter how convinced we may be of their truth. Until a theory is
definitively refuted, we can never be sure how it might need to evolve.
