Bad scientists - Why have scientists accused each other of dogmatism since antiquity?

What is it about?

What does it mean to call someone dogmatic — and why has that accusation survived for over two thousand years? This article explores how the charge of dogmatism, from ancient philosophy to modern science, has shaped what it means to be a “good” or “bad” scholar. Far from being an outdated insult, “dogmatism” has long been a powerful tool for drawing boundaries: between open-minded and rigid thinkers, between progressive and outdated ideas. By tracing how the term has been used in British and German scholarly debates, the study shows that dogmatism has proven remarkably adaptable. It has served as a catch-all label for many intellectual vices — from stubbornness to arrogance — and has evolved alongside changing ideas of scientific integrity. In doing so, the article reveals how a seemingly old-fashioned term continues to shape conversations about academic virtues, scientific identity, and the character of knowledge itself.

Featured Image

Photo by Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru / The National Library of Wales on Unsplash

Photo by Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru / The National Library of Wales on Unsplash

Why is it important?

At a time when scepticism toward science is growing, doing science — and being a scientist — has become increasingly challenging. One reason for this distrust is that many outside academia struggle to grasp that neither science nor scientists are entirely objective or lead to a single, definitive truth. Scientific knowledge emerges from complex conversations among people who must negotiate not only their findings, but also their methods — and, at times, their very identities as scientists. This chapter offers an inside look at these dynamics by tracing one of the oldest accusations scholars have levelled at one another: dogmatism. Following the term from its ancient roots to the present day, the case study reveals how academics have long debated who gets to be part of the conversation, and why. The examples show how scientists have always argued and disagreed — and how their ideas about what it means to be a “proper” scientist have shifted over time and place. It reminds us that while the reasons and ideals behind these debates have changed, the need to argue, question, and negotiate has always been central to the pursuit of science.

Perspectives