All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

Your objection is understandable and I wouldn't agree with Modulous's position as it stands. I would agree that for any individual that is how science must be conducted but the process of science itself is one which relies on the comparisons of various differing subjective points of view to try and reach the true objective reality.Your position as I understand it is that every has their view molded from such an early age that it effectively resticts the range of subjective opinions brought to bear on the question of evolution in such a way as to make its rejection impossible. The problem with this seems to be to be the large number of dissenters who do not believe in evolution. The fact that the level of dissent decreases sharply with the level of education and scientific qualification hardly argues for the early and highly pervasive indoctrination you claim exists.At best it might argue that universities and colleges act as a selective filtering which eliminates dissenting views, but you seem to be arguing for a much more pervasive and early 'indoctrination'.TTFN,WK

Welcome to philosophy. This statement is not just limited to Evolution. We cannot know the truth of anything. Something we now take for granted as true can be shown to be false in an instant. That is why science revolves around falsifiability not truafiability. This is why science stresses the tentatitivity of its conclusions. That is why, if you study science past high school it gets drilled into your head to state your assumptions, your error margins and so on. The amount of times I started a day by writing "Assuming g is 9.8 and constant..." beggers belief. All my work could have been falsified by demonstrating that g is either not 9.8 or it is not constant or both. I certainly don't. I think it is a method of uncovering the mysteries of the objective reality and doing so, knowing that the point of view that attempts to uncover this is subjective. Thus, we can never prove or know the truth. Only come to tentative conclusions. Nor am I trying to make it one. Indeed, I have started by assuming EI is true, and then trying to see if that makes it any different from anything else we tentatively conclude to be true, and what we can do about it if it is true. So far you have not shown how EI is any different from my purported Holocaust Indoctrination. I was told from a very young age, from films and school that there was a Holocaust. If I became a historical scientist, I would view all the evidence from that period with Holocaust tinted spectacles. Therefore the Holocaust is, as you say, 'dead in the water'. Indeed, even if it were total that would demonstrate nothing. I ask you again, should we abandon a theory because everybody believes it to be the strongest theory and so teaches everybody that it is the strongest theory? Should we never teach people theories? Should we just let each generation attempt to discover the theory for themselves? Would this not be detrimental to science? Indeed, if we did this, then we would probably never uncover theories, such work is often done by visionaries who stand on the shoulders of giants. Indeed, if I have neglected to discuss with you Evolutionary Indoctrination my apologies. Instead of asking for evidence of this indoctrination, or for the mechanism of it I am merely questioning.Q: Do we have any evidence of this level of indoctrination lasting for this long before?
A: Yes, when all science included God in the hypothesis. All things were looked through with God-tinted spectacles.Q: Were non-God tinted hypothesis and theories able to break free of this indoctrination?
A: Yes, once the threat of unpleasant death was removed the indoctrination quickly began to crumble.Conclusion: Indoctrination does not necessarily halt science. Any indoctrination that can halt science would have to be as complete as the religious indoctrination of the Dark Ages (ie death threats to those that do not conform to the indoctrination procedure).Observation: Those who do not accept evolution are free to express this opinion, and do so, they are even alowed to do science if they want. There are thousands of these people.Secondary Conclusion: The evolution indoctrination, should it exist, is much less than that of the Dark Ages, therefore it does not stand as an inpenetrable obstruction for truth.And I agreed with you, that if evolution is not true, then it will take longer to learn that had we not been 'indoctrinated'. However, maybe not. Maybe this indoctrination helps us learn more about the theory, so that more tests of its validity are run, and more is learned about it. If evolution is true, this is a wonderful side effect, if it is false, it means that the data will eventually speak for itself.

I'll have a closer look at this CP. Being a rookie I've never heard of a falsification of a proposition but presume you know what you're talking about. It appears a logical enough tack anyway.

This may be useful:Falsifiability - Wikipedia

quote:

---

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...

---

Depends on what you mean by "evolution". Is the life observed today the result of a multitude of years of lifeforms multiplying and changing to become what see today. Then the evidence thrugh the fossil record is very easy to comprehend. You can look at the fossil history of the horse, or the whale for an example. The fact that evolution has happened wouldn't need that much study in my oppinion.If you mean the specific complex ways that this evolution has happened, then you are right that this would take a lot more education and trials to be sure of the specifics.

quote:

---

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?

---

Because they would examine the evidence themselves. When they are wearing the evolution tinted spectacles, everything that doesn't fit with the theory will stand out, and need extra explaining. This might mean they will expand on the theory, or it will mean that some parts will have to be trashed.You see this is how one would work. Assuming the theory one would expect to make certain observations. If the evidence doesn't fit these observations, then you've got some 'splaining to do!What creationists often claim is that the evidence supports both the Evolutionary explanation, and the creatinist explanation, and only the scientists bias stop them from assuming the creationist explanation.This of course fails on the simple fact that there are no creationist scinetific theories. The creationist theories are post hoc theories, only claiming that what ever evidence you find it will be evidence for creation.So to sum up. the scientist assumes his hypothesis or the theory when looking at the evidence, to find out if it fits the evidence. A basic requirement when making any argument is that you are aware of all the assumptions you make, and this is very much so in science. So even if your assumptions are formed by indoctrination, all scientists work towards the goal of making every assumption explicit and test each one.

quote:

---

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

---

the answer is not NO, so I guess the rest of your thesis fails./soren

"microevolution not macroevolution?" he said tentitively (given that he doesn't want to get into scientific evidence debate with SL -coz he can't!!!)And he then ran off with Chiro's falsification under his arm going "Hmmmm??" and wondering if SL was going to give a thumbnail use-of-evolution-sketch for his scientifically-challenged co-debator. Just for interest like, not debate.

quote:

---

sidelined writes:

​

Why is streptococcus Pneumonia resistant to penicillin?Indeed,it has developed resistance to several antibiotics.Can you explain how this is accomplished?

"microevolution not macroevolution?" he said tentitively

---

Whatever your definitions are both micro and macroevolution is a part of TOE, so whichever it was it would still be an example of evolution./Soren

Thanks CK.

---

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable" Sir Arthur Keith, Anthropologist.

It doesn't form part of the debate really, just an aside out of interest. Reminds me though, there's no definition of Evolution in the first post. Talk about moveable feasts eh. Not very SM is it?

Don't get hung up on definitions. I'm not saying that "critical" and "objective" mean the same thing.You have claimed that it is impossible for scientists to be objective about evolution. I have suggested that scientists require critical thinking to go about their day-to-day work.What I am asking you to do is explain to us how scientists can think critically on a daily basis - if they are supposedly "indoctrinated". And I am asking you what is the difference between that day-to-day critical thinking and objectivity.What I am saying is that you are wrong about the lack of objectivity. I am saying that scientists could not function without thinking critically. I am saying that their critical thinking is what ensures their objectivity.I want you to explain why you disagree with that.

---

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

iano That evolution is accepted as fact does not make it true it makes it the best explanation of the evidence that we observe in nature and experiment.Science is not about truth but about clarity.I do not think I would try to convince you of how the vast number of investigations in multiple scientific disciplines converge in support of evolution but I would ask what it is that you find to be about evolution that does not make sense to you?

Wow! this thread sure took off! I turn my back for a weekend and there are 150 posts waiting.Well first of all, before we examine what effects (if any) EI would have on the ability of Scientists to evaluate evidence objectively, you have to show that it actually occurs.Let's take a look at your first premise
from premis #1 As I stated in the other thread, I do not accept that EI takes place in this way. Obviously I can only directly address the way it was while I myself was growing up. What I can definitely say is that during the 1960s in England, evolution was not taught in any school that I ever attended in any way. Possibly if I had chosen to pursue Biology rather than Chemistry and Physics then it may have been touched on, however I do not think so as none of my biology oriented friends from that time remember it either. I doubt that it would have been allowed in the classroom as English schools are run by the state which advocates creation (Church of England) and taught this in compulsary Religious Education lessons.
As for books and TV. I already told you that TVs were quite rare and only had 2 channels (up until BBC2 came on the scene). I used to watch anything I could find that related to science and I don't ever remember any programs on evolution being aired.
Books? I loved dinosaurs and fossils so I collected every book I could get my hands on. I checked my old collection this weekend and there is narry a word about evolution in any of them.As stated before, the only time I even heard of evolution was when it was explained to me by people who actively rejected it so I got all the hype about it being blaspemous rubbish with no grounding in fact. By the time I went looking for real information I was thoroughly brainwashed that it was complete BS.I can't speak for everyone but I can say pretty much for sure that there was no EI in my childhood. I am also pretty sure that I am quite typical for 40 somethings from England.I would also think that the vast majority of successful scientists in the field of biological sciences right now are around my age or older. I really see no way that any of them could have picked up much EI prior to going to College.Another point is that at college level, science isn't taught by rote repetition of known facts. It is taught by experimentation in which the student performs real experiments with real data and expected to reach their own conclusions as to what that data means.
The point which refutes the EI proposition is simply your own point that the student at this point does not have a real grasp on the subject matter.
Even if EI were true, this actually means that the student is utterly unable to even predict the outcome of the experiment (based on any kind of biased spectacles) that the actual result can be nothing but unbiased. For example, knowing that evolution is true does not give a student the faintest idea how to predict the changes in allelles of a microbe when it is placed in a perti dish containg an anti-biotic so when the most common DNA is examined before and after he has no idea what to expect.
The data spit out by the measurement instruments are the data points. They cannot possibly be biased.
They just show what is there.
How could any bias of the student cloud the results kicked out by a mindless DNA sequencer?
(note this applies to all scientists including PhD and beyond)Here is an experiment that should prove or disprove evolution. There is no way that any kind of EI bias could screw up the results unless you are implying that the scientist would actually lie about the results.

• Take a single microbe.
• put it in a petri dish.
• Sequence the DNA from several of its descendents.
• The TOE predicts that the DNA should be slightly different in the descendents than it was in the original.
• If evolution is false then the DNA will be identical to that of the parent. ie. all microbes have same DNA.
• If evolution is true then they will have slightly different DNA
• If this is still not enough then wait for a nice big population to grow then add a mild antibiotic to the dish.
• Again evolution predicts that some of the microbes might develop a resistance to the antibiotic. Do some survive?
• If evolution is true then yes. If false then NO. (note that multiple studies should be conducted simultaineously to avoid the possibility of contamination)

How could EI possibly affect this experiment?

Vaccinations do not require belief in ToE for them to work, nor for someone to have an understanding of them.It is well-known that microbes affect people as well as animals.Can you show why someone Intelligent Design, for example, is a faulty understanding via the questions you posed?It is not necessary to accept ToE to accept the basic similarities that affect the study of bacteria, germs, viruses, etc,...

quote:

---

In debate, motivation is irrelevant.

---

I agree. However, you did post a comment that was irrelevent to the debate, to wit: In so far that you yourself have pretty much volunteered to give your motives for this debate, I simply give a warning. Just as you are claiming that scientists are looking at the evidence through "evolution tinted lenses", so I am suggesting that you may be taking part in this discussion with "creation tinted lenses", and so you may not be capable of objectively evaluating your argument or mine. You may think about this or not; as you say, the arguments will stand on their own merits, and I will say no more about motivations (unless they become relevant).-

quote:

---

But Rome wasn't built in a day. I've got to get my theses up and standing before adding more.

---

Understandable. But I'll give you a warning -- threads here are closed when the post count reaches 300 or there abouts. It is always possible to start another thread to continue, of course, but you might want to keep this in mind.-

quote:

---

It may be right it may be wrong....

---

True; but your statement was that if it can be shown that evolutionary scientists are indoctrinated as you say, then evolution is necessarily false. As long as we recognize the correct statement is "if the scientists conclusions cannot be trusted, then we cannot be certain of the truth or falsehood of evolution" then there is no need to say more. It doesn't appear to be important to the debate anyway.-

quote:

---

If not how can you prove your belief. If you can't then on what basis do you believe it. A faith-basis is the only one I can think of. Faith isn't science, it's Religion

---

I can't prove any of my beliefs. As far as I know, I may be in a large studio ala The Truman Show, surrounded by actors, and all that I have ever learned may be false, part of the script. I can't prove that this is not the case. However, I have to make a judgement as to the likelihood of this being true.In the same way, I cannot prove that evolution is true. All I can do is take the two scenarios (1) scientists' bias make their conclusions untrustworthy and (2) the scientists can be trusted to give a reasonable account about the world that we live in, and try to determine which one is more likely. Right now, I find (1) to be too unlikely to be given much credence. I don't have to know anything about evolution -- all I need to know is how science is done, and how biases affect the judgements of real people in real life, and make reasonable extrapolations.I will also add that my being an expert in the evolutionary sciences would not help my case anyway; by your own proposition, I could be too biased by my life-long indoctrination to be able to trust my professional judgement.So you want to have your cake and eat it, too. Since I am not an expert in any of the biological or geological sciences, I have no reliable way of knowing that the theory of evolution is correct. But if I did have expertise in one or more of the biological sciences I still would have no reliable way of knowing that the theory of evolution is correct. You are trying to make your proposition unfalsifiable. The problem is that if you were to succeed in making it unfalsifiable, the argument becomes merely an academic one with no practical significance.-

quote:

---

Detecting inconsistancies doesn't mean anything is proved one way or the other.

---

For a theory that has been as verified as the theory of evolution, verified through many different observations in many different field using many different methodologies, then you are partially correct; a few minor inconsistencies will not prove anything one way or the other. This is not just evolution; it is how all the sciences operate. It is when the inconsistencies begin to add up, or become to systematic, and/or when someone discovers a new theory that explains the inconsistencies, that a theory will be rejected. That is not the fault of evolutionary theory, not the result of bias; it is just how all the sciences work.That said, this does give a way of proving that the scientists are indoctrinated. Start another thread, and try to give evidence that clearly disputes the theory of evolution but is ignored or "twisted" by the scientists. That is, provide examples of bias.-

quote:

---

I don't have to prove whether the MI is blind or conspiratorial.

---

My point is that without guidance and maintenance by a central authority your indoctrination methods are too inefficient, haphazard, and unreliable to produce the effects that you claim.
-

quote:

---

According to folk here you must be Expert In Your Field, have published in that field etc,etc to be qualified to comment.

---

That is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go as far as some people think. The main reason I ever use an argument like this is to chastise someone for trying to argue against evolution without making even a minimal effort to understand it.-

quote:

---

We know EI exists.

---

No, that is the topic of the debate, whether the "EI" that you describe exists.-------Finally, my comment on "FoL" was simply to make a point. There are two explanations (and perhaps more) for the observations that you make. I am asking why we should consider your explanation any more likely than mine. "FoL" can be falsified, by the presentation of evidence that scientists are ignoring or radically twisting data to fit their theories. I am asking how your "EI" can be falsified. I suggested one way in another post -- you replied that you need to examine it a little more closely. Fair enough.

Hi RingoIf your saying 'critical thinking ensures objectivity' whilst accepting that the definition of critical doesn't imply objectivity then it's you who has to show it, not me. I can't show something I don't believe is possible to show. Given the definitions I've got to work with for both words I cannot make the case. Which has absolutely no detrimental effect on my main claim. Au Cointreu in fact...