Evidence for a Conspiracy of Scientists?

Hard-line creationists often voice the concern that there is an overarching conspiracy of atheist scientists to deny the (biblical) truth. Some go as far as to view the whole enterprise of science as inherently corrupt and not worth engaging with. Others seem to adopt a weaker line, and believe either that any conspiracy is localised to certain problematic disciplines, and still more believe in an even weaker unconscious bias on the part of scientists; that is, that in order to preserve their mental equilibrium scientists must keep on believing in broken ideas like natural selection in the face of the evidence.Since it is impossible to disprove this claim of an unconscious conspiracy, it is the ultimate fall-back position for people who make such a claim. In effect it is an unassailable stronghold, but at the same time it remains pretty unpersuasive. The same claim might legitimately be made against those who claim it.So the focus of this discussion isn’t so much the weak position, but the stronger position that might be supported by evidence or perhaps falsified.With regards to the stronger position, I have a couple of doubts. As has been pointed out elsewhere, it seems likely that if anyone found a half-decent way of falsifying an old earth or evolution they would be lauded as scientific geniuses, not garrotted by the science mafia. (I can’t be utterly sure of this however.)It isn’t the intention of this topic to discuss the supposed evidence that disproves evolution, but rather to consider the merits of these conspiracy theories, and discuss the evidence that might support them, what shape it might take, and how people might go about gathering it. It would also be appropriate to consider how the strong belief in a malevolent conspiracy by the science community might be falsified.The reason why this topic seems relevant is that it strikes me that if some variation of the conspiracy theory isn’t in place, then there isn’t a really good reason to stop creationists’ engagement with science and scientific method.(I realise that many contributors to this site are scientists, and rest assured I will make a special effort to scrutinise their arguments for evidence of disingenuousness or other forms of badness that might suggest they are trying to cover their tracks.)What does anyone else think?This message has been edited by Tusko, 04-16-2005 08:03 AMThis message has been edited by Tusko, 04-16-2005 08:05 AM

I particularly like the idea of "leftist totalitarianism" from "dictator professors" who are "arrogant and elitist". (For best effect, those words should be spat out like so many broken teeth.)It would seem that since they cannot engage in an open scientific debate (because that would after give the scientists a decidedly unsporting home advantage), they have to resort to claims of conspiracy. Its depressing that such an open refusal to engage in open debate should be so effective a tool for persuasion, but there you are.Clearly, one of the reasons that claims of conspiracy are so effective is that they are all but impossible to confirm or deny. In some ways, the Conspiracy of Scientists Theory (TM) is a bit like invading Russia; if you start to seriously question it, it can keep retreating as far as it needs to before you give up. Then when your back is turned, it's come back strong as ever.I was just fantasising about a world in which you could cut the pernicious idea of science conspiracy out of the argument by exposing it as silly (or hell - as the goshdarnit truth. I'm not fussed).So the idea of this thread was to try to discuss, with poker faces, if there could be any way in which evidence for or against such a conspiracy might be gathered. I have a couple of ideas, but they aren't perfect. What we need is the easiest way possible that people can try out for themselves in the comfort of their own home. I just can't think of any. So these are all I could think of:1) Presumably, infiltration of the sanctum sanctorum of the scientists would be one way. Recordings of their evil discussions could then be broadcast to the world, thus discrediting them. Unfortunately, this is going to be very hard to do for two reasons. Firstly, they might convert you via advanced brainwashing techniques to believing their lies, and secondly, just because you never make it to the inner sanctum doesn't mean that it isn't there somewhere. Its also going to take a lot of time, money and effort. So that totally fails.2) Demonstrating where the bible explains really big important observable phenomina better than science would be another way perhaps. But as far as I'm aware, there aren't many examples of that.If people were given a way of evaluating the likelyhood of a science conspiracy for themselves, then maybe they could see that it was likely to be false.But of course this is all nonsense.

I find that pretty depressing to be honest. There's every possibility that that sheriff is a lovely guy, but I get so frustrated I want to scream when I hear people say the kind of things he was saying.I think you have given a great illustrative example of a really difficult modern problem. Science used to be a secret knowledge that I'd imagine the general population didn't bother themselves with that much. Now everybody has an opinion, and its usually governed by a vague sense of mistrust.What are they DOING in there? the general population ask of the scientists. This sense of mistrust, which seems to exist to some degree in the general population, regardless of religious outlook, is so easily harnested by the creationist propagandamongers.What interests me is why this sense of mistrust has arisen. Hiroshima, Cold War, whatever. I don't know. Its pretty healthy too, don't get me wrong. But its a godsend for creationists because it gives them a getout clause that works every time.

No - no! Don't ban me!I'm just a sweet little blue elephant.(And anyway, I'm not media-savvy enough to effectively expose your Stalinist, Fascist, Anti-Democratic, Pro-AIDs, Anti-Happiness, Pro-Kitten Drowning lies for what they really are.)

quote:

---

i don't think the bible's doing so good at explaining natural phenomina. i don't really even think it TRIES to.

---

Well, I suppose it made a pretty good crack at it when it was written, but it looks largely obsolete in the face of the last couple of thousand years of scientific enquiry.I wasn't really suggesting that it makes a very good job of explaining natural phenomena. I was just trying to think of a way to make the insidious "conspiracy" come out into the open so it could be subjected to some scrutiny, and most likely, be laughed out of town.For instance, I'd like to hear how the conspirators stop creationist scientists from publishing their refutations of the body of modern science AND BECOMING STINKINGLY RICH AND FAMOUS as a result. But we never do. It really annoys me.This message has been edited by Tusko, 04-19-2005 12:34 PM

I was thinking of the stuff that you raised - you know - the firmament and all that jazz. That looks like an attempt to describe the natural world. And the other classic I suppose is the flatness of the earth. Or that pi is around about 3. All that looks plausible enough if you don't have the ability to make the kind of observations that we can nowadays.

Thanks for your reply, Brad. I think I understand what you are saying. Could you just clarify something you said a moment for me? What do you mean in the above post when you say "dividing the theoretical interest"?You sound quite confident there will be a paradigm shift in scientific understanding sometime in the near future. I was wondering what you were basing this belief on? I am not a scientist, and sometimes find scientific language hard to follow, but I am very interested to hear your opinions.I like the new avatar, too. Has anyone said that it looks like a mischevious walrus with its nose pressed up against the glass?

Shocking! The pitiful self-love of some of these atheists boggles even my mind.How's yours coming along?As a member of the church of Undecido-tron, god of the easily confused, I decided to leave my half-arsed wank-pillar incomplete as a kind of gesture of my own humility, intelligence and skill.

Hi Brad -Sorry that I haven't responded sooner. I have to admit to having trouble getting to grips with your post, and as a result of this difficulty have delayed any response until I got a proper chance to go over your message again. I tried to give it a proper read through just a second ago, but to no avail; I'm not understanding it, I'm afraid.I hope you don't get too frustrated when this happens, especially when you obviously spent so much time formulating it. It is certainly frustrating for me, because I feel like I might potentially be able to comprehend and enjoy your thoughtful contributions if I had a better grasp of the apparently scientific language that you use.Perhaps you don't feel like it, but if you could paraphrase your argument in terms that a layman could understand, then I'd be very grateful.Thanks Brad![edited to conceal my secret identity]This message has been edited by Tusko, 04-28-2005 08:20 AM

Hello Philip!I'm a bit unsure as to what's happened here - it would appear that Adminmooseus has editted what you have to say, or perhaps he just stuck the end bit on. Either way, I'm a bit taken aback: I certainly didn't want to appear as a "cruel hater" with this thread! It's very unfortunate if it has come across as facetious or disrespectful - it wasn't intended in any such mean-spirited way.I'd be very interested in hearing what you have to say about this subject - namely, the attitudes of many people that there is some kind of conspiracy of pro-evolution scientists. From your response, am I to take it that you don't believe a very significant number of people seriously subscribe to this view?I personally find this view quite hard to take seriously, but I'm quite happy to accept that maybe I'm wrong and that maybe there really is such a conspiracy. It is, after all, a view shared by many, and there are reasons to believe this that they consider convincing.I have a problem with the "conspiracy" view however.The main reason I'm frustrated by this conspiracy idea is this - because it seems to provide a simple way of avoiding the actual debate; attacking all scientists in an ad hominem fashion, if you like.What do you think?

I think that's a very good point. I expect scientists can be - and are - biased when it comes to reviewing papers. Wouldn't it be cool if they did double-blind peer-reviewing? It would be interesting to see what direction the science took then, and demographically, who was doing the talking.Do they not do it because its too much bother, do you think?Other than double-blinding (if that's the correct term), can you think of any other ways in which bias, conscious or unconscious, could be addressed? Surely its in everyone's interest to address the problem of bias and percieved bias.(Incidentally, I thought that it would be more interesting to talk about the big, superscary conspiracy of all evil scientists, because there is a vocal minority who seem to support this idea. They have a published literature, which can be very interesting. The weaker position, though far more likely to be a possibility, is a bit harder to pin down and say anything much about.)

Thanks for that, its really interesting.Because I'm not really familiar with the process, I'm just groping around here.I guess in addition to whether a reviewer can guess the author of an anonymous paper, there's also the question of whether they are expressing orthodox or unorthodox views in that paper. If the person is expressing way out views and seem to be a total nut, this could easily bias a reviewer. Consceivably, something really great could be missed perhaps?I suppose this isn't really such a problem when you can attempt to repeat any wacky results they might have got through experimentation.

Hi EZscience!I haven't met you before, thanks to contributing to this thread. (Also, fantastic avatar, though I don't think I'd like to meet it on a dark night).I guess the point that you make - namely, that there can't be any credibility to conspiracy stories of this nature - could be interpreted by a conspiracy believer as close-mindedness, or even as sinister conivance with the Dark Scientific Cabals of Doom. That's not to say that I give much stock to that belief myself, I hasten to add. But that kind of "take it or leave it" attitude (although perfectly reasonable) ends up making life even easier for those who don't want to engage with science.I guess the purpose of this thread was to try to see of someone ingenious could think of a way of pinning down the conspiracy theory to interogate it and evaluate it - and to do so in a way that conspiracy creationists would have at least some difficulty dismissing. I guess if they have proper faith in their beliefs, then they shouldn't be afraid to have them tested.That's why I'm particularly hoping for contributions from conspiracy creationists that might offer the kind of evidence that they would need to falsify the belief that there is a conscious conspiracy.I realise that its a bit fanciful, because whether its true or not, it offers a psychological comfort to those who believe it, and as a result might be next to impossible to falsify in any meaningful way.But I thought it might be fun to try anyway.

His argument sounds very sensible to me. He is also at pains to explain why he thinks it important (and the wording also makes it clear that he is quite well rehearsed in the standard anti-evolution arguments.I bet it doesn't cut much mustard with conspiracy theorists though. I'd be very interested to hear what one of them might say in response to that letter.

Presumably hoop-jumping like this can't actually retard innovation in science? Or do you think that there might be a degree to which imaginitave, original science is stifled?