Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
23 online now:
CosmicChimp, jar, PaulK (3 members, 20 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,453 Year: 20,489/19,786 Month: 886/2,023 Week: 394/392 Day: 10/74 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated
iano
Member (Idle past 255 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 1 of 312 (227563)
07-29-2005 6:29 PM


Edited by iano to expand on the MI, enclosed by (e)
Edited by iano to include the definition of indoctrination to be used
Edited by iano to tidy up text - no change to meaning or argument
Edited by iano to include some theses based on discussion so far
Edited by iano to add some posts which support thesis 2
Edited by iano to add thesis 3 and correct typing errors
Edited by iano to add thesis 4

Preamble
Scientists who believe in evolution are people. People now and people before they were scientists. When they were just people, these folk heard about evolution. And what they would have heard is a single, unified and repeated message. And that message was: "Evolution is FACT!".

I'm not a scientist, but what I suspect, is that evolution-targetted science, like other science, is complex. Very often it is very complex. Many aspects of it: mutation of genes, body symmetry, the fossil record, survival of the fittest etc...is very complex. Maybe not when the 'science' is a toned-down version - as seen on t.v., or in the broad-brushstroked pages of books like 'The Blind Watchmaker. But when it comes to having to withstand the critique of peers, and is presented in the form of published papers, then it gets very complex indeed. So complex in all probability, that only other experts in the field can truly comprehend every critical piece of minutae when deciding whether to accept or reject a particular morsel presented, as Science.

This raises some questions:

Given that science is complex, how could anyone be sure evolution was true without achieving the necessary degree of education and experience which would allow them to evaluate for themselves the complex evidence involved? If the answer is they couldn't then...

How do people who become evolution-believing scientists know that a belief which arose in them when they were uninformed, isn't the main reason why they believe today? In other words, could indoctrination, prior to them becoming scientists, ensure that every piece of evidence, every hypothesis, every conclusion they make, is pre-filtered through evolution-tinted spectacles?

If the answer to the above is a resounding NO! then how does a scientist know, or even more difficultly, demonstrate this?

Opening Proposition:
Scientists who believe in evolution were indoctrinated to believe in evolution before they became scientists. And because of that, it is impossible for such scientists to claim they can to be objective about evidence which they use to argue that evolution is true. Or to put it another way, it is impossible for them to demonstrate that they aren't wearing evolution-tinted spectacles every time they weigh up evidence. Spectacles that started tinting when they were young and got increasingly more tinted as time went on to the point of only letting in light coloured 'Evolution'. Let me sum up by coining a phrase in saying that evolutionary-believing scientists have been subject to evolutionary indoctrination, henceforth EI, and that one logical outworking of this, should my case hold together, is that evolution has no basis in fact. It is not true.

The Mechanism of Indoctrination (MI):

To get started it would be useful if I could provide a mechanism by which folk (scientist and non-scientist alike) are EI'd. The mechanism by which EI works is lifelong and repeated exposure to statements which say or imply that Evolution is true. The mechanism starts at a very early age, when there is little to prevent it exerting influence. MI takes many forms: kids nature programmes, tv ads, cartoons, friends taunts, games played, science lessons all the way through school, popular science books, science fiction, natural history programmes,toys, eminent looking scientists saying it's true, early interest hobbies in things scientific, films, magazines, .. and the fact that even the dog in the street knows it. The MI has virtually nothing which opposes it. There is no scientific alternative presented which says our existance is the result of another mechanism (or if there is, it's, relatively speaking, a side issue and not comparable to the mass-influence of the MI - the cogs and gears of which are listed above). Not even religion will necessarily affect it's workings. Many who have a faith: Christian, Buddist, Hindi etc will not consider there to be conflict between their belief and the acceptance that Evolution is true.
(e)The mechanism is not purposely directed by anyone. It is not for example a conspiracy by evil scientists who want to pull the wool over peoples eyes. There is no conscious thought behind the MI, which operates blindly and randomly. It is as blind and directionless as the process by which evolution is believed to march forward - so should be easy for many here to comprehend and believe. What litte man-made directing does exist, can be considered along the lines of the The Emperors New Clothes. That is, EI'd scientists propagating their EI-edness.(e)

The definition of indoctrination
the definition to be used in this debate is the following from the Penguin English Dictionary:

1. to teach (a person or group) to accept a view, ideology etc uncritically, esp by systematic repetition.

Theses

1. Up until the time they become qualified to Ph.D level or have wide experience in a scientific field, everybody who believes in evolution, can only do so as a result of EI. This due to the fact that any qualification they may have up to that point is rejected as insufficient to permit them to comment on the invalidity (and thus too, validity) of evolution. This established by the following: msg 25 (wj), msg 26 (cavediver), msg 27 (charles knight), msg 48 (Sidelined). If anybody in still inclined to believe that EI doesn't occur throughout childhood, teenage and school years and into college then I would point them to the fact that 'everybody' believes the earth rotates around the Sun through a process of indoctrination (as defined above) and by the same mechanism as I propose for EI.

2. The only field a scientist may claim that no EI has influenced his science is the field where he is trained in or has wide experience of. A vast majority of paelantologists for example, have not the training or experience to evaluate the genetic argument of evolution for themselves. They may accept conclusions in published peer-reviewed papers but in doing so are placing faith in those who publish and criticise those papers. Faith however is not science. This thesis is self-supporting (although it is concurred with by msg 48 (Sidelined) and possibly others) msg 61,62,70,72 (CK) msg 113 (Rahvin)

3. Assuming thesis 2 can be established then the following can be added. The vast majority of scientists have expertise in a single field or a group of closely related fields (witnessed by educational qualifications etc). This means that they are surrounded by claims from numerous other fields, who say they've evidence that Evolution is true. A particular scientist has no way of evaluating these claims, except perhaps by exercising faith. The scientist is thus being EI'd, according to the definition of indoctrination presented above.

4. Scientific Method (SM) is an non-specific entity. Whilst it can broadly understood to provide a mechanism under which science is carried out, evaluated and tends toward self-correction, it cannot INFER UPON ITSELF the ability to defend,'in toto' and at all times against: error,deceit,favoritism, etc., ...or EI. The reasons I say this are (for now) twofold.

a) SM is not absolute. It has changed over time and will continue to change overtime. Things that are not absolute and consistant cannot be said to act in an absolute, consistant fashion.

b) There are many cases where SM has not been applied and personal ideology was allowed to affect the science. One example is sufficient to make the point (Einsteins Cosmological constant: a case of now you see it, now you don't). SM may ensure correction soon... or it may not.

Hence, if someone is to claim SM as having defended against EI (as opposed to exhibiting a general 'tendency' towards defence), then the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate, specifically how this has been achieved. That SM may tend to counter effects of EI at some point, says nothing about the situation now or previously. And now is where the OP is making it's claim and now is when SM, if used as a defence against EI, needs to be shown to be such.

This message has been edited by iano, 30-Jul-2005 04:52 PM

This message has been edited by iano, 31-Jul-2005 07:51 PM

This message has been edited by iano, 31-Jul-2005 09:56 PM

This message has been edited by iano, 01-Aug-2005 10:18 PM


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by mick, posted 07-29-2005 7:30 PM iano has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 7:34 PM iano has responded
 Message 5 by Rahvin, posted 07-29-2005 7:39 PM iano has responded
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 07-29-2005 8:06 PM iano has responded
 Message 13 by Brad McFall, posted 07-29-2005 8:27 PM iano has not yet responded
 Message 16 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 9:18 PM iano has not yet responded
 Message 48 by sidelined, posted 07-30-2005 1:33 PM iano has responded
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 07-30-2005 4:05 PM iano has responded
 Message 128 by Chiroptera, posted 07-31-2005 4:47 PM iano has responded
 Message 155 by kongstad, posted 08-01-2005 10:43 AM iano has responded
 Message 162 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-01-2005 11:50 AM iano has responded
 Message 184 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-02-2005 2:33 AM iano has responded
 Message 268 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 10:56 AM iano has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12644
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 2 of 312 (227569)
07-29-2005 6:47 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

mick
Member (Idle past 3301 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 3 of 312 (227574)
07-29-2005 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
07-29-2005 6:29 PM


iano writes:

evolutionary-believing scientists have been subject to evolutionary indoctrination, henceforth EI, and that one logical outworking of this, should my case hold together, is that evolution has no basis in fact. It is not true

Yawn. Iano, why not try visiting a library. They are filled with things called books, which contain information and argument.

Why didn't admin catch this one? Are we going to have an argument about whether evolution has a "basis in fact"?

This message has been edited by mick, 07-29-2005 07:32 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 07-29-2005 6:29 PM iano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 07-29-2005 7:54 PM mick has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6811
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 4 of 312 (227577)
07-29-2005 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
07-29-2005 6:29 PM


The problem with the the proposition that the acceptance of evolution by scientists is the result of some sort of indoctrination is that it requires believing that thousands of people in a variety of different cultural mileau having a variety of different educational experiences, and many with very little actual exposure to evolutionary thought along the way, can all be so indoctrinated that they simply accept the theory of evolution even though they are working with real world data.

It doesn't appear to be possible. If this is the case, then there seems to be something unique about the theory of evolution. Consider a couple of historical examples.

Over 500 years ago, it was common knowledge that the stars and planets went around a stationary earth. In fact, the concept of a moving earth was almost inconcievable. Yet despite this constant immersion in "geocentrism" indoctrination, a heliocentric model was proposed, and once it was shown that this model accounts for the data better than the older one, it was accepted.

Over 300 years ago it was believed by Europeans that the earth was only about 6000 years old, and that there was a global flood roughly 4000 years ago. This was widely taught at home, in the churches, and at the educational institutions (especially since at this time the majority of educational institutions were run by religious orders). Yet when the early geologists, predisposed to believe in a global flood, and ready to find evidence in support of the flood, investigated the world, not only did they not find the evidence they were looking for, but the evidence was compelling enough to lead them into believing the earth is at least several tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of years old.

The entire history of science is filled with examples like this, the abandonment of Newtonian mechanics (twice! quantum mechanics and relativity theory) being yet another important example. The history of western scientific advance shows that indoctrination is insufficient to prevent large numbers of people, examining actual data, from recognizing when the old theories are insufficient, proposing new ones, and then testing the new theories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 07-29-2005 6:29 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by iano, posted 07-30-2005 9:46 AM Chiroptera has responded
 Message 270 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 11:27 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 5 of 312 (227579)
07-29-2005 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
07-29-2005 6:29 PM


How do people who become evolution-believing scientists know that a belief which arose in them when they were uninformed, isn't the main reason why they believe today? In other words, could indoctrination, prior to them becoming scientists, ensure that every piece of evidence, every hypothesis, every conclusion they make, is pre-filtered through evolution-tinted spectacles?

The answer to your question is the scientific method itself. The very point of the scientific method is to disprove a hypothesis. No scientific theory is "fact." No one who even so much as paid attention in High School science classes thinks that scientific theories are "Fact." They are the best descriptions that fit all of the observed evidence. A hypothesis becomes a theory when it has been tested repeatedly and is never disproven.

Does this mean that all science is flim-flam and just a best guess? No. These theories have been tested and tested and re-tested. Evolution has never been disproven. It has been modified by new data along the way, but the actual mechanism itself has never been disproven. The theory of gravity is just a theory...but you and I are still held to the ground by the force it describes, and actions that depend entirely on our understanding of gravity (space probes, satelite orbits, etc) lend support to the notion that, even if it isn't dead-on, our theory is pretty close to the truth at minimum.

If scientists believed in evolution simply because of indoctrination, they would be failing to use the scientific method itself.

Scientists who believe in evolution were indoctrinated to believe in evolution before they became scientists. And because of that, it is impossible for such scientists to claim they can to be objective about evidence which they use to argue that evolution is true. Or to put it another way, it is impossible for them to demonstrate that they aren't wearing evolution-tinted spectacles every time they weigh up evidence.

Wrong. The highest honors in science go to people who disprove commonly held theories. Newton disproved common theory about gravity. Einstein disproved the notion that newtonian physics were constant. The goal of a scientist is to invalidate common conceptions so that future theory is based more closely on fact.

The mechanism by which EI works is lifelong and repeated exposure to statements which say or imply that Evolution is true. The mechanism starts at a very early age, when there is little to prevent it exerting influence. MI takes many forms: kids nature programmes, tv ads, cartoons, friends taunts, games played, science lessons all the way through school, popular science books, science fiction, natural history programmes,toys, eminent looking scientists saying it's true, early interest hobbies in things scientific, films, magazines, .. and the fact that even the dog in the street knows it. The MI has virtually nothing which opposes it. There is no scientific alternative presented which says our existance is the result of another mechanism (or if there is, it's, relatively speaking, a side issue and not comparable to the mass-influence of the MI - the cogs and gears of which are listed above). Not even religion will necessarily affect it's workings. Many who have a faith: Christian, Buddist, Hindi etc will not consider there to be conflict between their belief and the acceptance that Evolution is true.

Irrelevant. Once an individual reaches the point in their scientific carreer where they participate in research, their goal is in fact to disprove hypotheses, even if they believe the hypothesis to be true (in other words, the testing of the theory is what prevents biased opinion from influencing experimental observation and fact).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 07-29-2005 6:29 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by iano, posted 07-30-2005 11:00 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12644
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 6 of 312 (227584)
07-29-2005 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mick
07-29-2005 7:30 PM


mick writes:

Why didn't admin catch this one? Are we going to have an argument about whether evolution has a "basis in fact"?

Admin was aware this is actually just another "Is there really any evidence for evolution?" thread. I put it in the Is It Science? forum hoping the focus could be on other things, such as the degree to which prevailing views influence the direction of scientific inquiry.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mick, posted 07-29-2005 7:30 PM mick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mick, posted 07-29-2005 7:59 PM Admin has not yet responded

mick
Member (Idle past 3301 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 7 of 312 (227590)
07-29-2005 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Admin
07-29-2005 7:54 PM


gotcha!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 07-29-2005 7:54 PM Admin has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17526
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 8 of 312 (227593)
07-29-2005 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
07-29-2005 6:29 PM


What's so special about you?
I asked you this question in the other thread and I'll ask it again:

What makes you immune from the indoctrination? Why are you capable of critical thought but thousands of scientists are not?


People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 07-29-2005 6:29 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Rahvin, posted 07-29-2005 8:10 PM ringo has responded
 Message 31 by iano, posted 07-30-2005 11:31 AM ringo has responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 9 of 312 (227595)
07-29-2005 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ringo
07-29-2005 8:06 PM


Re: What's so special about you?
What makes you immune from the indoctrination? Why are you capable of critical thought but thousands of scientists are not?

Now now, let's not make ad hominem attacks. His proposal can easily be demolished without them.

But you're right. Religion (well, biliblical literalism and fundamentalism, anyway) is all about indoctrination to the point where observable evidence is ignored in favor of preconceived notions.

Let's stick to just showing that science is not though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 07-29-2005 8:06 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 8:14 PM Rahvin has responded
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 07-29-2005 8:22 PM Rahvin has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6811
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 10 of 312 (227598)
07-29-2005 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rahvin
07-29-2005 8:10 PM


Re: What's so special about you?
quote:
His proposal can easily be demolished without them.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. This has all the hallmarks of classic conspiracy theory -- where the arguments against indoctrination will be turned around to show just how effective the indoctrination really is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rahvin, posted 07-29-2005 8:10 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 07-29-2005 8:25 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17526
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 11 of 312 (227601)
07-29-2005 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rahvin
07-29-2005 8:10 PM


Re: What's so special about you?
It's not an ad hominem attack. Did I word it badly?

My point is: if the indoctrination is so universal, how did iano avoid it?

This message has been edited by Ringo316, 2005-07-29 06:22 PM


People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rahvin, posted 07-29-2005 8:10 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Rahvin, posted 07-29-2005 8:30 PM ringo has responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 12 of 312 (227603)
07-29-2005 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Chiroptera
07-29-2005 8:14 PM


Re: What's so special about you?
I wouldn't be so sure of that. This has all the hallmarks of classic conspiracy theory -- where the arguments against indoctrination will be turned around to show just how effective the indoctrination really is.

Sure, but he would have to provide evidence to support any claim of a vast conspiracy of indoctrinated evolutionists. We have already shown, in several different posts with several different examples, that science aims to disprove its own theories to further the persuit of truth. Why would scientists latch on to evolution when they have been willing to accept things like relativity and quantum mechanics that totally rewrite previous thought?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 07-29-2005 8:14 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by iano, posted 07-30-2005 11:55 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3347 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 13 of 312 (227604)
07-29-2005 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
07-29-2005 6:29 PM


quote:
Scientists who believe in evolution were indoctrinated to believe in evolution before they became scientists.

My gradfather's evolution was not doctored by me in any way.
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=366&m=261#261 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=366&m=261#261">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=366&m=261#261
I was able to see reptiles and amphibians in the same communal space/time in ways that he could NOT see fish&birds. This implied that that -worm--IF EVOLUTION-amphibian-warmblood- then my view of motHER EaRtH's HERps fORmly subscribe.

I wondered IF THE FORM of this remained for long Earth years, if the energy to maintain said could be extractable.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=50&m=83#83
I now see how technology might be adapted economically to accomplish this.

No, I was not indoctrinated. The thought was rational. GG'd lipids and snake extrement may have more in common than the repulsive nature oof the molecules involved in the smell of my posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 07-29-2005 6:29 PM iano has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 14 of 312 (227606)
07-29-2005 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ringo
07-29-2005 8:22 PM


Re: What's so special about you?
It's not an ad hominem attack. Did I word it badly?

My point is: if the indoctrination is so universal, how did iano avoid it?

I see. You meant to point out that if everyone were indoctrinated to believe evolution, iano should as well. It looked like you were saying that his argument is invalid because he's simply been indoctrinated into his own beliefs.

But iano is not an evolutionary scientist. He's talking about a specific subset of people - scientists, who were possibly indoctrinated by their long education on the subject.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 07-29-2005 8:22 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 07-29-2005 8:47 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 17526
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 15 of 312 (227608)
07-29-2005 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rahvin
07-29-2005 8:30 PM


Re: What's so special about you?
Allow me to refer you to the OP:

quote:
When they were just people, these folk heard about evolution.

quote:
Scientists who believe in evolution were indoctrinated to believe in evolution before they became scientists.

quote:
The mechanism starts at a very early age... kids nature programmes, tv ads, cartoons, friends taunts, games played, science lessons all the way through school, popular science books, science fiction, natural history programmes,toys, eminent looking scientists saying it's true, early interest hobbies in things scientific, films, magazines....

It's pretty clear that he's talking about everybody, not a subset.

As I see it, there are two fundamental flaws in iano's idea:

1. He claims that everybody is indoctrinated, practically from birth.

2. He claims that scientists are unable to overcome that indoctrination. (If your take on it is correct, they become even less capable.)

Claim #1 is falsified by the fact that iano himself is not indoctrinated. If one is not indoctrinated, then why not ten? Why no hundreds? Why not thousands?

Claim #2 has been discussed by Chiroptera.

This message has been edited by Ringo316, 2005-07-29 06:48 PM


People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Rahvin, posted 07-29-2005 8:30 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 9:22 PM ringo has responded
 Message 36 by iano, posted 07-30-2005 12:08 PM ringo has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019