Is dogmatic science attacking philosophy as well as religion?

As a very wise professor once told me, philosophy is simply ones belief system. It generally is held in place until the acknowledged existence of contrary evidence destroys the held beliefs. Philosophy and religion are therefore very similar in nature.

As Albert Einstein said, imagination is more important than knowledge. If you mean by dogmatic science, a tendency to only acknowledge those things concrete and proven, then I would say yes, it is attacking philosophy and religion. This is my position because many "scientific people" lack the vision inherent in imagination. This vision has historically often proven itself real. The truly groundbreaking scientists typically have this vision unencumbered by excessive scientific indoctrination. The profoundly groundbreaking scientists typically have vision far beyond, and therefore not accepted by, the heavily indoctrinated scientific community at large. For more information on the topic of scientific revolution read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), by Thomas Kuhn.

I understand at least dogmatic science that gives clear precise numbers and values. Philosophy is a central part in science. As for religion it is only made up non coherent stories for the purpose of controlling masses, philosophy is messed up in religion, Logic is abandoned totally in religion.

Science isn't dogmatic. Dogma is a faith-based concept. Science isn't based on faith, it's based on evidence.

Science doesn't say "no proof, not real". Science says "no proof? It's not science then"

Science requires premises or theories that can be tested. That's what science does.

A faith-based concept is useless to science, whether it be real or not ultimately.

Science never found a UFO but doesn't say they aren't real. They are undiscovered by science and there's no way, so far, to test for them, since one hasn't crashed without evaporating into faith-based stories.

I'm sorry, but you don't know the first thing about science.

Proof is a concept in math and logic; science deals with evidence.

Evidence is how you tell the difference between reality and non-reality.

Sure it is. And what about politically correct science?

In 2003 the British Medical Journal released the longest study of it's kind ever on second hand smoke. The result? Second hand smoke has no effect on anyone.

BUT, since the real study was not what many people wanted, they simply changed the science to suit their own views.

So much for science, eh?

Not at all. Philosophy is similar to religion, except that it does not rely on "revealed" truths. There are good philosophies and poor philosophies. The criteria are logic and the avoidance of unverifiable assumptions, just like science. Religion, unfortunately, is always based on unverifiable assumptions.

No, science is overthrowing dogmatic philosophy. Nothing has challenged long held philosophical assumptions about causation and determinism as quantum physics.

Your fictionalized (straw man) representation of science is not "no proof, not real", but rather "no evidence, do not assume it exists" -- Occam's razor.

Philiosophy is a science, and one of it's major areas is discussion of religion based on logic, generally ending with the result that religion cannot possibly be true.

In some ways philosophy is the most pure type of science.

How does science attack anything?

It just shows what the evidence supports while being attacked by any group that has beliefs that contradict the evidence. Eventually they lose support and just fade away.

Edit: And here's the truth about second hand smoking studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10770318

The concepts of evidence and verification are philosophical - though they address science, as such, they transcend science.

The validity scientific method for establishing scientific claims is argued through philosophy not science as such.

---