|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
chirptera writes: First things first; if I am reading the OP correctly, you are claiming that the exposure to the concept of evolution is an effective means to indoctrinate a large number of well educated people against an objective evaluation of real life data. That has not yet been demonstrated. It is premature to talk about whether indoctrination can be withstood by some defenses until it is established that there is something to be defended against. Read the thesis 1 and see what you think. I'm not saying that if you started EI-ing well educated folk you would get far. But the indoctrination didn't start when they were well educated. It started in the almost in the crib - as did earth around sun indoc See if you agree with thesis 2 as well. I agree with you that the data isn't infinitely malleable as you state. But it doesn't have to be to come up with dramatically different conclusions. Think of the effect of Einsteins constant to all the experts whose minds where boggled by his science. One little constant and you had Universe expanding vs Universe not expanding. Thesis 2 implies that a scientist can only hope to objectively evaluate the narrow area of data relevent to his field or an area where he is similarily expert. He cannot comment objectively on which way the data elsewhere was malleable-ated. He can only trust peer reviews by others. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-31-2005 02:20 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Ringo writes: If it is impossible for them to be objective, how does that not imply lack of critical thought? Good point. So I looked up in a dictionary and could see that objective and critical are different words. You can examine critically but unobjectively at the same time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
CK: See thesis 1 for evidence of EI
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I'm not a scientist Brad so am unable to hold it together long enough to follow your train of thought. But what I gather is that you don't think your EI'd due to a critical evaluation of the evidence having immersed youself in gaining ability to evaluate objectively (but forgive me if I'm wrong). This would seem to agree with thesis 2
Do you claim the position of the person in thesis 2 for one field of Evolution or more fields or what? You'll have to be clear with me though... I ain't that bright
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Sorry to hear about the Ph.D CP. My dad spent 3 years on one when it transpired that an impossible task had been set. Wife and 3 kids at the time. Gutting for them both and not great Christmas presents for us kids for many a year. Stand back, relax, consider your position rationally and don't worry about your mom. I'm sure it's Chiroptera she loves not the letters in front or behind his name!
Ian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
sidelined writes: The layperson accepts much at face value and this is true of even experts in one field who try to venture into the expertise of another field.The best one can do is if one disagrees with a given aspect of an issue is to educate themselves to the level of commitment that they have.If,after all that,you are still disatisfied then you will remain disatisied. Thanks for being confident enough to agree with at least a little of what I say - rather than debate the obvious (to me at least). But I haven't got time to educate myself to sufficient level, yet still would like to know if evo can be true. And EI is there so I need to see that 'Science' can stop it or counteract it. Which is why I'm here
One might point out that technology that is succesfully deployed as a result of the theories is ample backing for the success of a theory's validity.Most of modern medicine depends on the validity of Evolutionary theory to account for its ability to cure ills and improve life for people. It was a unnecessary quip on my part that generated this but now that your here, could you give me a thumbnail sketch of how a knowledge of evo can account for modern medicines cure ability? If I knew then it's a surefire way to guard against such quips in the future. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-31-2005 02:47 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I did read it all and gathered you argue that the process by which you came to believe ensured that EI couldn't operate. But again-due to my own limitations, your writing leaves me unclear if this is what your saying and if so how you achieved this. I repeat, I ain't that smart!
All I know is that I HAVE NOT BEEN INDOCTRINATED I 'know' the God exists, but whenever I tell people that, the first thing the ask is 'proof?' However, I not askin that individual folk prove they haven't been EI'd. I'm asking how they assume they haven't been, given it's so prevalant. I think you agree (strongly even) that EI exists. No apparent widespread mechanism appears to be present in the body Science to resist it's effects. If this is the case then my OP is the most natural thing to ask. There may be cases where it's possible for someone to totally self-educate themselves without reference to what my OP implies is EI'd literature,magazines papers,lecturers etc. If you could indicate a reasonable mechanism whereby this could happen (reasonable will do) then I'm sure it would be highly unusual and not at all typical. In which case I'll modify my OP to read 99.9% of Evo scientists..."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: This is true for all the sciences. If one is going to discuss this problem, then why choose evolutionary science? The problem is that the theory of evolution is a problem for a certain vocal religious sect that has an unpopular political agenda that goes beyond the teaching of biology. The choice of biology, then, seems a tad suspicious. If one wants to discuss the possibility of scientific indoctrination and biases, why not choose a different field of science, one that doesn't have the political and religious baggage associated with it? -
quote: As sidelined mentioned, that would depend on the commitment that a person wishes to make to study the issues. I see nothing that prevents anyone from becoming acquiring enough knowledge to be able to critique any field. It would take a lot of time and effort, especially if one were to do this without being enrolled in a formal college program, but if one really feels that this is important perhaps she needs to make this commitment. -
quote: This is pretty vague. I'll assume it's made less vague below. -
quote: First, if I understand this post, the question is whether these "evolution-tinted spectacles" makes it impossible to objectively evaluate data, and to see that the data contradicts the accepted theory. Either scientists are capable of objectively evaluating data or they are not. If it is not possible to determine this one way or the other, this becomes a rather sterile discussion. -
quote: Actually, this is not true. Even if scientists were being indoctrinated, it is entirely possible that the dogma into which they are being indoctrinated reflects reality. -
quote: First, it is to be demonstrated that this exposure is as far-reaching as is claimed. Current biological scientists are about my age, and I can attest that I was never exposed to evolutionary thinking to this degree. Second, the claim is not whether people know of evolution, nor whether they are predisposed to accept it. The claim is whether scientists are are capable of objectively evaluating the data and determining whether the data falsifies the accepted theory. It is by no means obvious that such exposure, even if it does occur, could possibly lead to such "indoctrination". -
quote: And that is the biggest weakness of this proposition. It hard to imagine how such a consistent and successful indoctrination could occur without some centralized authority determining and maintaining the orthodoxy. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -
quote: This is false. There are aspects of any theory that are broad enough that inconsistencies can be detected with relatively modest levels of education. One can smell shit in a room even when one is standing in the hall. -
quote: This, too, is not true. While it is true that no one can be an expert in every single field, any scientist has to have a fairly good enough knowledge of several fields outside of her immediate area of expertise. ------------------------------------- The claim being made is that the scientists engaging in studies related to the theory of evolution are predisposed to believe that their data will confirm the accepted theory, and this predisposition makes it impossible for them to objectively evaluate the data and to conclude that the accepted theory is wrong when the data so indicates. I have already mentioned historical examples to show that there is good reason to reject this claim; nor does psychological or sociological studies show that the sort of "indoctrination" that is being claimed is capable of producing this situation. -------------------------- Further, I have to ask the following question: How would it be possible to falsify this claim? What evidence would indicate that this indoctrination does not occur? Let me be more specific. Let me present another scenario which I call "The Facts of Life" (FoL): Proposition:The theory of evolution is the correct description of the history of life on earth. Conclusions:If the theory of evolution is correct, then the actual physical data will support this. Then an evolutionary scientists, doing science, evaluating data, will correctly conclude that the theory of evolution is true. Now, how do we determine which scenario, EI or FoL, is correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
iano writes: Ringo writes: If it is impossible for them to be objective, how does that not imply lack of critical thought? Good point. So I looked up in a dictionary and could see that objective and critical are different words. You can examine critically but unobjectively at the same time. Sorry, but that's not much of a response. I got out my calculator and, sure enough, "objective" and "critical" are two different words. But you've done nothing to explain how "you can examine critically but unobjectively at the same time". I was refering to the OP:
quote: I ask again: in what way is that not the same as saying that scientists are incapable of critical thought? People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Hi Modulous.
modulous writes: Agreed, and vice versa, can anyone be totally sure they have falsified evolution without achieving the education/experience? I'm attempting to show that you cannot accept any claim made for evolution being 'true'. This on the basis of it being contaminated by EI . If all claims can't be held to be true - due to them being so contaminated, then evolution isn't true. If something not being true means its 'falsified then that's how you do it. You don't necessarily need to know the first thing about it to do this.
Possibly but not necessarily, and I'd be surprised if this was true in 100% of cases. Generally speaking we learn a little about evolution and accept it, then when further study is started, it raises some questions that need a lot more study to answer. At what point exactly does the EI stop - given that it starts at a young age. Your lecturers believe it, your text books explain things in the context of it. At what point in your life are you not subject to it?
no human can claim they are objective. However, when the theory was first postulated scientists wore Creation-tinted spectacles and were convinced to go the other way. This seems to me to indicate the evidence for evolution was stronger than evidence for any other idea (eg creation/teleology) Yet Science relies on objectivity - even if the objectivity stems from internal self-correction-by-peer (which I haven't seen the mechanism for w.r.t. EI yet). As far as I can make out, the 'evidence' that Darwin presented to support his theory was such as to ensure his shredding had he appeared on EvCforum. The reasons for the take up of his ideas lay less in science but in other areas (athiesm vs theism), eg: it levelled the playing field a bit. Or so I'm told. I don't know either way. Your right about the Creation-tinted spectacles. Method based-Science was born on the basis that the world was the logical, predicatable and ordered product of a Creator. If Newton, Keppler,Linneus,Kelvin etc, etc had for one moment thought is was the result if random action then they probably wouldn't have bothered. Like, if the structure and thoughts in your brain are the result of random movement of atoms, why on earth would you have any reason to trust anything it tells you? Anyway back to topic
iano writes: ...and that one logical outworking of this, should my case hold together, is that evolution has no basis in fact. modulous writes: non-sequitur. If some indoctrinations have taken place it does not mean that the doctrine that is being indoctrinated is not based in fact. Close (and you forced me to look up what a non-sequitur is!). If EI can be shown to inhabit all evolutionary conclusion then no-one can state that any of it is objective. A science about which you could say, "none of it is objective" is dead in the water. Aarghh...late. That pints waiting. Gotta go!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1968 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
ringo writes: I got out my calculator and, sure enough, "objective" and "critical" are two different words. But you've done nothing to explain how "you can examine critically but unobjectively at the same time". The definition of objective will include a phrase like "evaluate while excluding personal beliefs". The defintion for critical doesn't have such a phrase. IOW, you can be critcal whilst being influenced by personal belief eg: EI Not that it matters much either way. I don't claim that scientists are capable of critical thought (if by critical you mean excluding personal belief). Scientists are people. And people are people until proved otherwise. If Ph. D = your proof, then show mechanism by which personal belief if excluded from their thinking
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Okay now, hold still and open wide. This won't hurt a bit.
iano writes: The definition of objective will include a phrase like "evaluate while excluding personal beliefs". The defintion for critical doesn't have such a phrase. Whether a certain phrase is in your dictionary is neither here nor there. How about if you tell us in your own words the difference between objectivity and critical thinking?
IOW, you can be critcal whilst being influenced by personal belief eg: EI That's what I'm getting at: your "eg: EI" would be valid only if you could establish that objectivity and critical thinking were significantly different in science. That's why we need to know how critical thinking differs from objectivity.
I don't claim that scientists are capable of critical thought (if by critical you mean excluding personal belief). Here again, if "critical" means "excluding personal belief", how is that different from objectivity?
If Ph. D = your proof, then show mechanism by which personal belief if excluded from their thinking Now, that would be off-topic . We're discussing your mechanism here. And we have yet to see any empirical evidence from you that indoctrination occurs, so the mechanism is still moot. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Twice now I've posted to you and it's been the last post on a page so I'm going to repost so you don't miss it.
The real issue I think is less to do with some kid watching dinosaur programmes and more to do with what happens in the scientific world - but I've had problems getting people to accept that EI occurs so must establish that before I can move on to what happens laters. Look, that's just stupid. There is no "EI" that occurs, so why would we accept that it does? Unless we're supposed to believe that teaching the model that's actually supported by all the evidence is "indoctrination"? What's your experience in the sciences, again? It's ridiculous to assert that scientists are brainwashed and indoctrinated when the entire scientific process is one of mutual competition and attempts to undermine theory. The idea that you could get all scientists everywhere to agree to some kind of conspiracy is ludicrous. Maybe you've heard of this thing they give out, called the Nobel Prize? Do you know who gets that? The people that overturn accepted theories; the people that smash through orthodoxy; the people that uncover scientific instruction as indoctrination. In other words you're asking me to believe that somebody, somehow, convinced hundreds of thousands of people to turn their back on a million dollar prize and the acclaim of the world, all in order to stick it to a religion that, in point of fact, about 30% of these people actually belong to themselves. Do you understand why I might find that a little hard to believe? You never replied to my post 30, either, so I'll pose the question again - why is it, if evolution is indoctrinated lies and creationism is the little-known truth, that evolution produces results and new technologies and creationism has never produced anything at all except evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
A set of propositions has been made:
Evolutionary scientists have been exposed to evolutionary thought since they were young children. This exposure has biased them to look at the world in terms of the theory of evolution, and they must examine the data through this bias. As a consequence, evolutionary scientists cannot be sure that their data really confirms the theory of evolution; furthermore, we laypersons do not have the training necessary to check that their results and conclusions are sufficiently free of this bias so as to reliably confirm the theory of evolution. I wish to present the following falsification of this proposition. It is not uncommon for scientists to have trouble fitting new data into an accepted theory; this is certainly the case for evolution, and the creationists themselves will point out data that the scientists find problematic (in the creationist jargon -- the scientists themselves say "interesting" or even "exciting"). This has always been the case, and initially hypotheses are proposed that will explain the data. Often several different hypotheses will be proposed; moreover people will often have their own favored "pet theories".The scientific method culls these theories in the usual manner: if further data fails to support the theory, the theory will be dropped, but if further investigation confirms a theory it will be supported. But what is proposed in the OP is a break-down of the scientific method. At least it is the claim that the scientific method gives no confidence that a scientist will be able to objectively evaluate the data in falsifying the conventional wisdom. But there is no guarantee that two different scientists working in the same field will react to the data in the same way; the OP itself explicitly states that there is no central authority that dictates what the orthodoxy should be -- this is done unconsciously through the biases of the scientists. Yet, the personalities of the scientists, the different environments of the scientists, and the different emphasis of the scientists' work will predispose each scientist to view the data differently, and will inevitably lead each scientist to favor different theories. Furthermore, each different field uses radically different methodologies and studies very different questions. In fact, the history of science shows that over time different views of evolution were held by different people at different times, and that different fields often had different conceptions of evolution. Since the scientific method is insufficient to lead to an objective evaluation of data in regards to falsification of the theory of evolution, there is no reason to believe that the evaluation of data by different scientists in different fields in different locations exposed to different prominent scientists would lead to any uniformity in thought. If the data cannot falsify evolution, surely the data cannot falsify any particular theory favored by a particular school of thought. In fact, during the beginning of any science, there are often different schools of thought centered around different individuals in different locations. It is only because the scientific method allows independent verification of observations to allow everyone to reject the same theories and reach a consensus on the best theory. However, if the scientific method does not work, if scientists are predisposed to confirm their own incorrect theory, then each different school of thought will confirm its own pet theories, and a universal consensus could never be reached. Even if some consensus could be reached, it would only be temporary as new data causes different people in different fields in different locations to modify the accepted theory in different ways, until there are different schools of thought once again. I make the following conclusion: If evolutionary scientists, indoctrinated through constant exposure to evolutionary teaching since childhood, were unable to objectively examine the data in a way that could falsify their accepted theory, the we would not see a single unified theory of evolution. We would see evolutionary theory hopelessly fragmented, with different, irreconcilable versions of evolution favored in different regions by different fields. But this is not what we see. The theory of evolution exhibits a remarkable uniformity across disciplines and in different locations. The only major differences are what each field considers to be the important questions to be asked (not surprisingly), along with some differences in terminology. An examination of all the text books on evolution, from the high school texts through quite specialized monographs, will not exhibit any significant differences in the over all theory of evolution. Even the differences of opinion expressed in the popular science press are, upon closer examination, found to be over minor details. Therefore, I find the proposition that evolutionary scientists cannot objectively falsify their accepted theories to be unfounded, and I suggest that it is not difficult for even the layperson to find sufficient reason to trust them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I'm attempting to show that you cannot accept any claim made for evolution being 'true'. This on the basis of it being contaminated by EI. If all claims can't be held to be true - due to them being so contaminated, then evolution isn't true.
That doesn't make sense. If indoctrination has happened, then we should treat the claims of the indoctrinated as suspect. However, even if you can not be sure of the truth of something does not mean that something isn't true.
If something not being true means its 'falsified then that's how you do it. You don't necessarily need to know the first thing about it to do this.At what point exactly does the EI stop - given that it starts at a young age. Your lecturers believe it, your text books explain things in the context of it. At what point in your life are you not subject to it? However, my point was that this indoctrination would need a very high success rate and be so effective as to last over a century. It's possible, but not particularly plausible.
Yet Science relies on objectivity - even if the objectivity stems from internal self-correction-by-peer (which I haven't seen the mechanism for w.r.t. EI yet) Science doesn't rely on objectivity. It accepts that there is an objective reality and attempts to uncover the mysteries of that reality from a subjective point of view.
As far as I can make out, the 'evidence' that Darwin presented to support his theory was such as to ensure his shredding had he appeared on EvCforum. In part, but that is the nature of science. However, much of what Darwin presented remains solid. Most of his ideas that have been overturned were hypothesis that have been falsified (such as gemmules, Lamarckism as a means of inheritance etc). I'll remind you that Einstein didn't have a whole load of evidence for relativity, a lot of it was just mathematics...that's why they performed those tests.
The reasons for the take up of his ideas lay less in science but in other areas (athiesm vs theism), eg: it levelled the playing field a bit. Or so I'm told. I don't know either way. That would need support from yourself to hold up in debate. The reason why his ideas were taken was because they answered questions that other ideas (eg creationism) couldn't. Remember, Alfred Russel Wallace independently came to the same conclusions...the wind was blowing in that direction, Darwin and Wallace were just the first to get to the shore. A lot of biologists accepted it very quickly because they were already beginning to think in that direction, Darwin just filled it all out and spoke of natural selection.
If EI can be shown to inhabit all evolutionary conclusion then no-one can state that any of it is objective. I could say that about the Holocaust, or any history. Think about holocaust deniers. They claim the same thing, that historians have been subjected to Holocaust indoctrination, they only believe it happened because they view the evidence with Holocaust tinted spectacles (and what horrid spectacles they are). This HI demonstrates once and for all that the science surrounding the gas chambers et al is not objective. Thus Holocaustism is dead in the water. No. I agree that seeing something in a certain light will colour our expectations, and can cause us to be blind to truths that would otherwise be staring at us in the face. This always happens, it has delayed scientific advancement in plenty of areas. Relativity, quantum mechanics, these things emerged from indoctrination of the absoluteness of space and time. Had we not been so indoctrinated perhaps we would have developed atomic energy during the French Revolution, heh, who can say? The wonder of science is that whilst most of it's adherance are working within the paradigm of the current consensus, anyone can challenge it. It might take a long time, it might be immediate, but the wonders of falsifiability mean it is possible. Creationists have been attacking and probing for any weakness in the theory. Heck, whenever a paper comes out other scientists do likewise. Together, they help balance the bias as much as they can. So here is the big question. Should we abandon a theory just because most people believe it to be the best theory and they teach people that? Should we abandon it because of fears that we can no longer be objective about something which has come to be accepted by so many? Perhaps, instead, we should just try our best to make sure the work is good work, is good science and our assumptions are clear. If our assumptions are shown to be false, we should rethink the theory and either modify it to account for our new data or we should develop a whole new theory.
Aarghh...late. That pints waiting. Gotta go!!! Enjoy it, Cheers!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024