Dogmatism is moving social issues out of the realm of discussion and into the real of totalitarian policy. The examples include global warming, renewable energy, electric vehicles, self-driving vehicles and travel to other planets. All of modern science is falling into the same trap and always for the same reasonsincompetent power mongers taking over everything.
This state of existence was supposed to be impossible in a the US type of democracy, where freedom allows all viewpoints to interact. Power mongers found ways of preventing viewpoints from interacting, which is dogmatism.
The promoters of dogmatism are always wrong, otherwise they would find the interaction of realities to be favorable to advancing constructive purposes. For this reason, dogmatism is a test of corruption. It should be a self-condemning standard. It is only the ability of power mongers to overwhelm society that allows fakery to prevail against opposing realities as criticism.
Global warming is a test case for dogmatism, because it is forced onto everyone as a supposed emergency situation. We can therefore see how dogmatism developed around global warming in reducing a free society to a totalitarian state. Other examples are much older but more isolated and invisible to most persons, the most extreme example being the fraudulent state of physics.
The essence of dogmatism is the pretense that a perfect truth must be protected from contamination by disallowing criticism. It is inherently fraudulent and disgusting, as no social realities are perfect and rationality does not require isolation of realities. It is only the ability of brainless corrupters to prevail against a society that allows dogmatism to be enforced as an unquestionable standard.
The historical example was the Roman theocracy, pretending to be Christian, forcing superstition onto society and opposing the newly developing science which claimed the earth was round and orbits the sun. The result was that "flat earthers" are the metaphor for promoters of dogmatism.
So you wouldn't expect the promoters of dogmatism to be calling their opponents flat earthers. They do such things for the simple reason that corrupters accuse others of what they are guilty of as a method of breaking down the rationality of criticism. They do not have very high awareness, so they are not aware of much on a subject other than the primary accusations against themselves. So they simply reverse the accusations. Psychologists call that effect projection. Corrupters attempt to get rid of their guilt by projecting it upon their opponents.
Corruption evolves out of incompetence. Incompetent persons feel threatened by rationality. In fact, they are jealous of rational persons. So they try to find space for their limited abilities by breaking down rationality. There appears to be an element of this reaction in the promotion of "single payer" health care. It's not something that is in the realm of possibilities, and the entire effect is to obstruct rationality on the subject. In fact, if it were ever to be implemented, all other social programs would have to be abandoned due to all of the funds being sucked up for single payer.
So it is probably no coincidence that the persons who promote single payer are the same ones who promote global warming, renewable energy, etc. The effect is a breakdown of rationality in society.
Media Dogmatism is Creating One-Sided Reality.
Journalists are protecting us from false information on social disputes such as global warming. The standard of protecting information from error is dogmatism. It's what science replaced half a millennium ago.
It is said to be necessary since there is total agreement (97%) among scientists on global warming. The claim has been published in peer reviewed literature. How do journalists know that such literature is reliable? They just make a guess. They base their dogmatism on a guess.
Criticism is supposed to correct errors resulting from guess work. Journalists, however, are incapable of evaluating science criticism. Promoting something which they cannot evaluate is dogmatism, which is a path to totalitarianism.
The 97% agreement among scientists is phonier than a three dollar bill. Journalists are incapable of evaluating such corruptions, yet they promote and protect them. Any number of critics have exposed the 97% claim as fraud showing a major problem in science and its peer review process. For example, a very tiny percent of the evaluation sample (extracted from scientific literature) were among the 97%, and their views were guessed at, often wrongly. Science literature is the wrong place to be looking for opinions. The opinions had to be imagined.
When it was safer for scientists to express their opinions, the division on global warming was about 50-50. It would still be, except that scientists who are critical of the global warming view are mercilessly persecuted sometimes being forced to resign and usually losing grants and the ability to publish. So opponents must now conceal their views.
Journalists are instrumental in that result shaping reality for the public. Since journalists cannot evaluate science, they feel they must keep science out of journalism. But since the subject is a social dispute, journalists must have a position and it must be the proper position. So they look for consensus to align upon.
Seeking consensus as truth is the path to hell which is chosen by persons who don't know what they are talking about but feel that they must take a position. Journalists should have been representing all views. To do that, enough science should have been allowed in the media to provide evidence, so the truth could prevail. Instead, journalists assumed they could not possibly be wrong in making a good guess. But they guessed wrong.
The guesses are always wrong in disputes, because truth doesn't produce disputes, only errors do. Errors always have motives behind them. The motives which produce the errors are the same motives which produce the wrong guesses. The motive with erroneous science is to protect power when the persons who wield it don't know what they are doing.
Subconscious decisions were made on what journalism should look like. Dogmatic guessing is more in line with those assumptions than resolving disputes is. A process which produces accuracy is not the direction journalism has been heading. Where there are inadequacies, reactions get locked in place as substitutes for rationality, and they can never accurately represent objective reality.
An unresolvable contradiction in journalism should at least render neutrality. Global warming doesn't produce that standard even in journalism, because too many persons have been convinced that all life on planet earth depends upon accepting the dogmatically derived conclusions. Getting off that treadmill of circular logic is not something global warming promoters are capable of doing.
Below the circular logic is a machine in science which churns out errors. Journalism and science were not supposed to be that independent of each other. A society that is no longer science educated is not the only problem. A lack of rationality standards is a critical element of the problem. Assuming science cannot produce errors, with no knowledge of science, is an example of the lack of rationality standards.
Society assumes it knows more and more about science all the time. It's an illusion of the type that comes from persons who are too ignorant to know how ignorant they are. It takes a certain amount of knowledge to understand a lack of knowledge. Judgment and perspective in science require a high of degree of thoroughness and broadness of knowledge. Even a lot of scientists are so specialized that they miss proper perspective.
Only a rational interaction of realities will produce the evolution of knowledge that overcomes conflict and errors. The rational interaction of realities is not occurring.