[tacticalogic]

All of this is based on the ideas that have been laid out in our exchanges on this thread. I don't believe I have misrepresented any of it.

You say you test dogma by testing the observations it's based on, provided it's based on observation with no mention of how you test it if it isn't. It seems to be generally agreed that dogma isn't subject to the "observer problem", so it seems a little problematic to test it by testing the observations it's based on.

I didn't define dogma "such that it is untestable", I'm simply looking at the definitions and rules of logic being applied and finding they make it untestable for all practical purposes.

If it wasn't, I don't believe we'd be having the difficulty we are coming up with a straightforwad answer to the question of how to test it.

[cornelis]

tacticalogic: The great thing about the "observer problem" seems to be that since we're all "observers", it can be invoked at any time against anyone, with regards to any argument.

tacticalogic: It seems to be generally agreed that dogma isn't subject to the "observer problem"

It seems rather that you need to make up your mind and follow through.