Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 166 of 312 (228533)
08-01-2005 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Chiroptera
07-31-2005 8:00 PM


Re: A test for indoctrination
Chiroptera writes:
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.
'Trouble fitting data to an accepted theory'and 'hypotheis posed to explain the data' What does the hypothesis try to do here. It tries to fit the dissenting data into the accepted theory (or Mother Orthodoxy). I agree and offer an example. Cambrian Explosion. The data (fossils without a smooth evolutionary history) couldn't be explained in the framework of the Daughter Orthodoxy,ie: the, at that time accepted, idea that evolution progressed uniformly and gradually). What was the hypothesis? Explosive evolution called Punctuated Equilibrium. IOW, the hypothesis to explain the jarring data didn't run away from Mother it just replaced the Daughter (although maybe the two exist side by side I don't know Mother has 2 daughters perhaps). My OP would predict such precisely such occurances.
(an aside = no debate: Incidently, your model above sounds very ...er....evolutionary. Random mutation (different hypotheses) culled by SM leading to survival of the fittest. Evolution leaking out your pores mate(only kidding!!). Like Evolution, all it says is that which survives...survives, but doesn't say why it should be seen as 'the fittest')
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.
'Breakdown of SM' presupposes the SM is a useful mechanism to counter EI. This hasn't been shown so can't yet be assumed to breakdown. It can be shown (non-absolute SM open to interpretation and deceit (Einsteins constant)) that quoting SM is no guarentee of anything by itself. As described above, a scientist may 'objectively' falsify a daughter but because of EI-spectacles, isn't even considering Mother. Daughters are by no means sacrosanct and many have been replaced or modified. Mother however remains unaffected. Ever see the film 'The Matrix' (the first one). Folk had all the freedom in the world but couldn't see outside the Matrix. EI says that EI'd scientists are in the Matrix.(forgive the analogy if a poor one. It's only meant as an illustration not a proof or insult or such like.)
End of your para. Scientists can view the data very differently but if EI'd there are boundaries outside they can't thread. They are EI'd not to look at Mother. Only Daughter.
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.
Most of what you say is predictable by EI if you take the mother/daughter model of Evolution. A key sentence her is 'uniformity of thought' If daughters only are being re-fashioned you will get alot of unifirmity but still dissention. Mother marches on unaffected whilst her daughters change. It's still Mutation + Natural Selection I take it? If so that could be Mother. No one questions mother they just work on daughter (mechanisms whereby this could happen). Don't blast me on the exact science. I don't know exactly what constitutes Mothers and Daughters and there may be some Brothers and a Dad...but hopefully you get the gist.
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.
As I understand it, before Neo-Darwinism, people were all over the place just as you say my OP would predict.ND sought to unify them, harmonise them. ND made Mother. Now folk are free to obejctively investigate whatever they want - but it's only daughters their investigating. Mommy doesn't get looked at anymore.
(Not for debate!!Don't jump on me for mentioning ID please. But ID is I believe the only core challenge there has been on Mother. And Mother don't like it one bit. Mother is protecting her chicks like a lioness given the non-scientific/objective virulence against ID. Is the virulence not an indication of fantatical loyalty to Mother? If science was really that objective, I would have thought folk would clamour to check it out. But then again it could be the ID is a load of tripe. Hard to tell in EI-land (should that prove to be the case))
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.
My conclusion:
In the light of what you've said 'Hypotheses are generated to fit dissenting data into accepted model" illustrated by Punctuated Equilibrium and my Mother/Daughter analogy means I can't agree OP is falsified.
(almost wish I could, this is costing me a bloody fortune in time and money!!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Chiroptera, posted 07-31-2005 8:00 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2005 4:16 PM iano has replied
 Message 177 by Chiroptera, posted 08-01-2005 5:35 PM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 167 of 312 (228535)
08-01-2005 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Modulous
08-01-2005 10:29 AM


Re: but what's the problem?
Modulous,
Your argument is interesting and raises issues (eg: holocaust). It is largely a philosopical one as your opening para says. Philosophy does come into it as does evidence but the central tenet of my argument is logical and I feel needs to be tackled there. Maybe I'm wrong in asking that it be done so but you make a philosophical statement like
Indeed, even if it (EI) were total that would demonstrate nothing.
Which raises philosophical issues. The extent of my thread is not to investigate, discuss or even consider philosophical conseqences. That's be another days work. C'mon, lets try to get this to bed...or otherwise, logically.
(Not that EI would be unimportant if shown. If "American Scientist Peer Review Journal Esq" published the headline "EI has been established as total" there would in fact be consequences. Or at least there should be. I wouldn't hold my breath though

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Modulous, posted 08-01-2005 10:29 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Modulous, posted 08-01-2005 11:27 PM iano has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 168 of 312 (228537)
08-01-2005 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by iano
08-01-2005 3:58 PM


Re: A test for indoctrination
Punctuated Equilibria was never presented as a solution to the Cambrian "Explosion" in particular. It was presented as a general idea DERIVED FROM EVOLUTIONARY THEORY and with fossil evidence to support it.
Gould in fact was one of the writers who did most to popularise the flawed ideas of the Cambrian Explosion resulting from the misinterpretations of the Burgess Shale fossils (in Wonderful Life). Since then the evidence indicating that the "Cambrian Explosion" is largely an artefact of the fossil record has grown. Molecular biology already indicated that many branches of life had diverged prior to the "Explosion", but confirming evidence is now being found in the Doushantuo Formation in China. This fossil is one of the more important finds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 3:58 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 7:52 AM PaulK has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 169 of 312 (228538)
08-01-2005 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by kongstad
08-01-2005 10:43 AM


When is a horse not a horse
[qs Kongstad]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.[/qs]
If someone was to lay out 10 fossil skeletons beside each other, of animals purporting to belong to the horse chain or development plus the skeletons of 10 similar but 'unlinked'animals and said nothing about them, the un-EI'd observer would see skeletons of 20 random species of animals. They'd have no reason to think there'd be a link. Evolution says they're linked in a chain. And to understand the chain requires complex and specific understanding. If no EI exposure, then there's no reason to think they're linked at any level of education.
iano writes:
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?
Kongstad writes:
the answer is not NO, so I guess the rest of your thesis fails.
If the answer isn't no, it's yes. I really fail to see how the thesis fails. Does mother/daughter analogy a few posts ago affect your arguement at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by kongstad, posted 08-01-2005 10:43 AM kongstad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by crashfrog, posted 08-01-2005 4:38 PM iano has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 170 of 312 (228539)
08-01-2005 4:34 PM


Time out
There have been some interesting responses thus far. But I still think this debate is a bit all over the place myself. The OP is just a starter to get debate going. If I'd made no steps away from OP then that'd be fine. But folk aren't talking about 3 thesis I put up. These are things for which EvC peer-determined evidence has been presented or are considered self-evident evidence. We should be debating the evidence (ie: there's no evidence as such in the OP - just a claim. Could folk discuss the theses 'cos it's these that count. And this connection I got is too torturously slow to be repsonding to everything.
If I'm outta line then sorry but that's my gut feeling about it.
Ta - Ian

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Wounded King, posted 08-01-2005 4:39 PM iano has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 171 of 312 (228542)
08-01-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by iano
08-01-2005 9:05 AM


Re: Dis, Dat, Thesis and Doze
I have put a definition of Indoctrination up on post 1. It says nothing about truth or falsehood so why do you talk about truth or falsehood with respect to indoctrination?
Because it's ludicrous to assert that you can "indoctrinate" someone in the truth. When it's true, it's called "education."
Leave scientists out for a second.
Why would we do that when its only the opinion of the experts that matters?
As it turns out, the man on the (American) street generally doesn't believe evolution. That's the problem. Persons who do believe in evolution but aren't in a position to examine the evidence - which isn't all that many people, really, since the evidence of evolution is publically avaliable - believe in it because the conclusion of almost every expert is that evolution is accurate.
But their situation is irrelevant because it is scientists, not laypersons, who investigate such things as evolution. The fact that a scientist was once a layperson is irrelevant, since education often overturns ignorant belief. It's what Christianists lament all the time, of course - that college students turn from their superstitious faith in the light of education.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 9:05 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 7:37 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 172 of 312 (228543)
08-01-2005 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by iano
08-01-2005 4:23 PM


Re: When is a horse not a horse
If someone was to lay out 10 fossil skeletons beside each other, of animals purporting to belong to the horse chain or development plus the skeletons of 10 similar but 'unlinked'animals and said nothing about them, the un-EI'd observer would see skeletons of 20 random species of animals. They'd have no reason to think there'd be a link.
That's idiotic. Of course they'd see a link; the gradual change of form is more than obvious. How do you think we came up with evolution in the first place? From these obvious sequences of transitional fossils.
Of course, there are just some people - like you, apparently - who absolutely refuse to get 4 when faced with 1 + 1 + 1 + 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 4:23 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 7:58 AM crashfrog has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 173 of 312 (228544)
08-01-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by iano
08-01-2005 4:34 PM


Re: Time out
Well why not present some evidence then? As the one making these claims the burden of responsibility rests with you to back them up. If you feel that evidence has already been presented perhaps you could do a small summation of it so we all know where we stand.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 4:34 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 8:11 AM Wounded King has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 174 of 312 (228546)
08-01-2005 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Wounded King
08-01-2005 10:26 AM


Re: indoctrination of a nation, subjugation of damnation
wounded king writes:
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.
Why someone doesn't believe Evolution despite exposure to EI is beyond the scope of this debate. I only hold that all evo's believe as a result of EI. Suffice to say the dissenters may be indoctrinated to something else - religion perhaps. One idea at time is all I can manage at the moment.
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'
Have a look at the theses in post 1 (bottom of page) and work with debating them. But I think your right about colleges and uni's

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Wounded King, posted 08-01-2005 10:26 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-01-2005 10:49 PM iano has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 175 of 312 (228549)
08-01-2005 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by iano
08-01-2005 3:00 PM


Re: Critical thought vs Objectivity
iano writes:
If 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.
Stop playing games.
I'll lay this out one more time, very slowly, so that at least the lurkers will be able to see that you are avoiding the issue:
1. In the OP, you claim that scientists can not be objective because of supposed "indoctrination":
quote:
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.
2. I claim that scientists must be able to think critically in order to carry out their day-to day tasks. For example, they must understand what assumptions are being made, they must understand what data is relevant and what is not, they must be able to eliminate data points which are statistically "suspect", etc. I'm sure the real scientists on the board would be able to add a lot to that list.
Furthermore, they must be able to anticipate the objections that other scientists will have to their conclusions. (Remember: they are all competing for a limited amount of funding. It is not the "drones" who spit out the same old stuff that will be supported. It's the innovators.)
So, all I am claiming is that scientists must be able to think critically.
3. As I said, scientists' objectivity is based on their ability to think critically. They can look at an experiment and say, "I am assuming that the acceleration of gravity is 9.8 m/s2, so...." Or they can say, "In determining the radiometric age of a specimen, the weather on the day the specimen was collected is relevant if...." Or they can say, "We have ten thousand data points that fit within one standard deviation and three data points that do not fit, so...."
Science would not be able to produce any useful results if scientists were not able to think critically. No new drugs would be developed. No new aircraft would be designed. No new "miracle" household products would be invented.
Critical thinking is the bread-and-butter of all scientists. Do you disagree with that?
-------------
What I am asking you, again, is what is the difference between what I have described and "objectivity"?
Never mind the definitions. Never mind the semantic tap-dancing.
Show us the difference between critical thinking and objectivity.
All we have is your assertion that scientists are not objective. You need to back up that assertion.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 3:00 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 5:34 PM ringo has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 176 of 312 (228560)
08-01-2005 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by ringo
08-01-2005 4:53 PM


Re: Critical thought vs Objectivity
Ringo writes:
As I said, scientists' objectivity is based on their ability to think critically.
This is turning out to be a real debate within a debate hey!?
Let me put it this way. Einstein obviously thought critcally to be able to do what he did. But he still,wrongly, put a constant in his General Theory, simply because he didn't like what his science was telling him. That is, his IDEOLOGY was telling him constant, unchanging universe and his science that it was anything but. He chose his ideology. That wasn't being objective. He let his ideology influence his science. That he got objective later and removed the constant, doesn't change the fact he was critical/non-objective at the same time, at that time.
A scientist can be critical and non-objective at the same time. One doesn't necessarily follow the other.
That's my last post on the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by ringo, posted 08-01-2005 4:53 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by ringo, posted 08-01-2005 5:48 PM iano has not replied
 Message 179 by Kapyong, posted 08-01-2005 9:17 PM iano has replied
 Message 180 by MangyTiger, posted 08-01-2005 9:28 PM iano has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 312 (228561)
08-01-2005 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by iano
08-01-2005 3:58 PM


Re: A test for indoctrination
I don't think your "Mother/Daughter" really gets to my point. It isn't some "Mother" theory that is being preserved at the expense of the various "Daughters" -- it is one particular "Daughter" that is the unified theory of evolution -- namely Neo-Darwinism (which is what I assume you meant by "ND"), or whatever the current incarnation is called. Under you scenario, people not being able to falsify the current dogma because of their biases, how would it be possible for each scientist to see that their local "dogma" was falsified by the data? More to the point, how could a consensus be reached on which local "dogmas" were to be falsified, and which set of "Daughters", the Neo-Darwinian paradigm, be "chosen" to be the single unified theory of evolution?
If your thesis were correct, that scientists are unable to objectively determine when the current dogma is falsified by data, I would expect that there would still be a school of German Romanticism claiming the data endorses an inherent tendency of "progress" as the driving force of evolution, a Lamarkian school claiming that the current needs of the species drive evolution, a school that still claims extinction is due to "senescence" of the species, a Gouldschmidt school advocating that species begin with "hopeful monsters", and so forth. No one would have the capacity to reject these various schools of thought; more to the point, there would be nothing to compel the various workers in all the countries in all the different fields to reach agreement as to which schools were to be rejected.
Now, that there is a single unified theory of evolution is easily explained by assuming that the data do, in fact, support the neo-Darwinian theory, and that these other schools were abandoned because the data didn't support them.
It seems to me that you are now increasing the amount of work that needs to be done. You not only still need to provide evidence that the "indoctrination" that you describe (and it's still not clear that the exposure to this indoctrination has been as thorough as you make it out to be) can lead to the sort of bias that you claim, but now you have to provide for a mechanism by which a varied group of biased scientists in different countries and fields under different schools of thought can reach a near universal consensus as to a very precise theory in the absense of data that unambiguously supports that consensus.
Now let me first say a little bit about the Cambrian "explosion" and punctuated equilibrium. It's not really relevant to the point here, but you seem to think it is. As PaulK has pointed out already, punctuated equilibrium was not used to explain the Cambrian explosion. Rather, the Cambrian explosion is explained by noting that it took place over several tens of millions of years -- plenty of time for gradual evolution to occur. And, as PaulK noted, the molecular evidence is that the different phyla actually extend back another 500 million years before the beginning of the Cambrian. So the "explosion" was not as explosive as people think.
Now punctuated equilibrium is not a new "school" of evolution. It is still gradual evolution -- just that some times evolution is more gradual than at other times. And this was based on an examining the fossil record -- in Gould's case, looking at the pattern of evolution in a certain family of Bahamian snail (his specialty). Nor is it necessarily something new: in The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins devotes an entire chapter (quite gratuitously, in my opinion) excoriating Gould and Eldridge for claiming their idea was original or revolutionary.
At any rate, if punkeek were a new theory, it should not exist by your scenario -- under your scenario, scientists should not be able to see that the evidence contradicts the (previous) standard hypothesis of a single constant, slow rate of evolution. At the vary least, even if punkeek were proposed, the majority of scientists would be unable to let go of their assumption of a constant rate of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 3:58 PM iano has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 178 of 312 (228563)
08-01-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by iano
08-01-2005 5:34 PM


Re: Critical thought vs Objectivity
iano writes:
That he got objective later and removed the constant, doesn't change the fact he was critical/non-objective at the same time, at that time.
But nobody ever claimed that science gets it right on the first try.
If Einstein was momentarily not objective, it didn't prevent him from being objective overall. Yet, in your OP, you claim that that is "impossible".
Your contention that scientists can not be objective is falsified by your own example.
That's my last post on the subject.
I'll accept your surrender (gimme that sword ), but some lurkers may conclude that you don't have any answers.
Objectivity, after all, is directly related to the OP.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 5:34 PM iano has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 179 of 312 (228605)
08-01-2005 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by iano
08-01-2005 5:34 PM


Re: Critical thought vs Objectivity
Greetings,
quote:
But he still,wrongly, put a constant in his General Theory, simply because he didn't like what his science was telling him. That is, his IDEOLOGY was telling him constant, unchanging universe and his science that it was anything but.
Nonsense.
At the time Einstein developed his field equation,
it was NOT CERTAIN if Steady State was true or not.
So,
Einstein ALLOWED for it - he included a variable which could ACCOMODATE either result.
When the result was known, the variable was simply set to 0.
Einstein did NOT get it wrong.
He wisely allowed for an UNKNOWN.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 5:34 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 8:24 AM Kapyong has not replied

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 180 of 312 (228608)
08-01-2005 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by iano
08-01-2005 5:34 PM


Can an expert confirm this?
Einstein obviously thought critcally to be able to do what he did. But he still,wrongly, put a constant in his General Theory, simply because he didn't like what his science was telling him. That is, his IDEOLOGY was telling him constant, unchanging universe and his science that it was anything but.
I might have misunderstood the little I've seen and read about this but my understanding is that Einstein added the constant not because of any ideological reasons but because at the time he was working there was no evidence of an expanding Universe. It was a decade later that Hubble first produced evidence of the expanding Universe.
In other words he was working with the evidence available at the time - of course he missed a chance to be regarded as even smarter than he was (he could have predicted an expanding Universe before it was known about).
Maybe one of our cosmological experts knows for sure?
Edit: I started writing this before Iason posted the reply above
This message has been edited by MangyTiger, 08-01-2005 09:30 PM

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 5:34 PM iano has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024