quote:
Which seems to indicate the reason that Science doesn't have to worry about indoctrination is that the 'Scientific Method' will tend to filter it out. When was this ever tested or is that a philsophical decision?
Well, the scientific method is just a codification of "common sense" -- pretty similar to how most people live their lives. The scientific method is basically the following:
1) The observation that universe behaves very regularly, that there are patterns to the phenomena;
2) that we can figure out how the universe works by studying the patterns;
3) we try to figure out how the universe by coming up with ideas that explain what we see; and
4) we test our ideas by noting what else we should see if these ideas are correct and then checking that we see those things.
Isn't this how you go about your life? Don't you see patterns in the way the world around you, or is your life simply a series of unrelated and unpredictable events? Don't you have ideas and beliefs that help you sort out the events that happen in your life? When something unexpected happens, don't you try to figure out how it fits into your beliefs, and if you can't do that don't you alter your beliefs or even chuck them in favor of new beliefs?
Maybe not -- people are different I guess. But this is such common sense to me that I'm surprised to find that people behave different. Maybe you can explain why you find the scientific method inadequate for explaining the world.
-
quote:
What experiment was ever carried out to see what effects mass indoctrination would have on the observational and conclusional characteristics of particular and very large group of scientists.
I think it has been done, in a fashion. At one time all European geologists were indoctrinated into believing that there was a global flood that occurred roughly 4000 years ago. When they searched for evidence of this flood, not only did they find no evidence but the results of their studies showed that the earth had to be millions of years old, at the very least. So I would say that indoctrination seems to have a rather limited effect when scientists are honestly searching and trying to learn about the world around us.
How about you? Do you have any evidence that "indoctrination" will prevent the scientific community from recognizing when its theories are incorrect?
--
quote:
: "We believe in Evo but we find that the theory of gradual evolution is troubled by the Cambrian fossils. What explains this??? Well, it could be punctuated equilibrium..."
First, if you are referring to the "Cambrian explosion", then punctuated equilibrium was invoked to explain this. The "Cambian explosion" is easily explained by noting that this "explosion" occurred over several tens of millions of years -- long enough to be accounted for by gradual evolution.
Second, punctuated equilibrium does not contradict gradual evolution. Punctual equilibrium simply postulates that the rate of visible evolutionary change varies from very, very gradual to just gradual. Even during the times of quickest evolutationary change, it is still gradual evolution.
Third, punctuated equilibrium was discovered by examining the data. The fossil record shows that the rate of evolutionary change was not constant for all species at all times. Before punctuated equilibrium, there was no reason to assume that the rate of change was constant. There was no scientific laws that required it to be constant. If constant rate of change was assumed, it was because it was the simplest assumption to make; but there was no other reason for this assumption and it was abandoned once the data showed that the assumption was flawed.
Finally, this is the way every scientific theory works. No scientific theory explains everything it is supposed to; every scientific theory has to contend with unexplained observations. It was discovered that the planet Uranus did not follow Newton's laws. Did this imply that there was a problem with Newton's laws? It was hypothesized that there was an additional planet whose gravitational attraction was affecting Uranus' orbit. Was this the result of indoctrination? You can call it "indoctrination" if you want, but it seems sensible to wait until other hypotheses are examined before simply abandoning a theory that has been wildly successful. Sure enough, the planet Neptune was discovered, right where Newton's laws said it should have been.
-
quote:
Who is in a better position to decide whether the stumpy protrusions; which may or may not be precursor legs on a fish' than a scientist whose life is dedicated to the evaluation of stumpy thing - ie: the evolutionary scientist.
Except that these "stumpy things" looked just like the theory of evolution predicted that they would look. That various degrees of "stumpy" -- from obvious fins to obvious legs and all manner inbetween -- have been found, just like the theory of evolution predicted they should be. That these various degrees of "stumpy" are found in the exact order in the fossil sequence -- more fin-like "stumpy" below more leg-like less"stumpy -- just like the theory of evolution says they would. That the fish possessing these "stumpy things" show other features that are in between fish and terrestrial vertebrates -- more fin-like = more fish-like in other characteristics, more leg-like = more amphibian-like in other characteristics, just like evolution says it should be.
It isn't as if people believe that evolution is true and then just try to fit random facts into it. For over 150 years evolution has made very definite predictions. These predictions did not have to be observed, yet they were. Various phenomena have been proposed that would disprove evolution -- these phenomena could have been observed but they haven't. And this is with thousands of scientists in different disciplines using different methodologies over a century and a half. I am still waiting for some evidence that this could be the result of "indoctrination".
™ Version 4.2