All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

Well, what you actually said was: (Ain't computers wonderful. Everything you say is right there - unless you rewrite history. )Added by edit: Charles beat me to the draw. So, how about naming "quite a few others"?This message has been edited by Ringo316, 2005-07-30 02:02 PM

---

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

Maybe this should be in a topic by itself, but:How many lies have to be exposed before the thing being lied about is suspect? And how many lies have to be exposed before the person spreading them becomes a liar?"Good faith" is all well and good, but science has higher standards than you do.

---

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

That website, Articles Front | TASC, is just the usual creationist junk. They bow down to ICR, AIG, etc.This is a science forum.

---

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

What is germane to the discussion here is evidence that all scientists are indoctrinated and unable to think critically about evolution.What is really telling is that you can't stop yourself from presenting crank websites and fake credentials as evidence.

---

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

Yes it does. It goes to your credibility. Zero. Care to take a vote? You really don't get it, do you?This forum is like a Sunday School picnic compared to peer review. If you think you get nit-picked here, try publishing a paper.But every published paper goes through that peer review. And you think you can blow all that away with some half-baked idea about "indoctrination"?

---

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

I never said anything about you providing the quote. I pointed out that you defended a lie. You said the lie didn't matter. I said it did. I have said that virtually no scientist who has examined the evidence has abandoned evolution. You have produced no evidence to the contrary.You produced an example of a scientist who rejects evolution, but no evidence that he rejects it because of the evidence. If he rejected evolution before examining the evidence, my statement stands.

---

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

I am asking you to provide evidence that that is what they state. All we are getting from you is hearsay. Wrong. My argument is easily falsifiable. All you have to do is provide evidence that scientists have looked at the evidence for evolution and rejected evolution based on the evidence. I am not impugning anybody's motives. I'm asking you to provide evidence that that is what their motives are. All we have seen so far is your assertion. Now you are impugning my motives.All I'm asking for is evidence that real scientists have rejected evolution based on the evidence. When you have produced that evidence and I have examined it, then you can judge my reaction.

---

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

Fair enough. I just didn't want to leave those points unanswered in case some poor innocent was mislead.

---

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

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:

---

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.

---

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.

Okay now, hold still and open wide. This won't hurt a bit. 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? 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. Here again, if "critical" means "excluding personal belief", how is that different from objectivity? 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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Uh... what data would that be now? (I may have missed it, so could you indulge a forgetful old man and post a link your data?)All I remember seeing is an unsupported assertion that everybody is "indoctrinated". Actual data would have to include some facts.Something about the methodology would be helpful too.How big was the sample size? How was it determined who was "indoctrinated" and who was not? What are the weaknesses in the methodology - i.e. what aspects of it could produce erroneous results? What was done to compensate for those weaknesses?Were there different degrees of "indoctrination" detected? If so, what was the cut-off point between "indoctrinated" and "not indoctrinated"? Also, how does your "mechanism" account for different degrees of "indoctrination" and how do different degress of "indoctrination" effect your conclusion?On the other hand, if different degrees of "indoctrination" were not detected, why not? Was the testing flawed? How does your "mechanism" explain a homogeneous "indoctrination" across a broad sample. Was the sample selection flawed?What did the peer-reviewers say about the methodology? Were there any suggestions for further experiments?What peer-reviewd literature is there in similar areas? Do other researchers get the same results using similar methodology? What have other researchers done differently and why? How could those differences in methodology effect the results?And on and on.When you post your data, and answer those (and many other) questions, you will have some claim to having the only hypothesis that fits the data.

---

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

Thanks for the reminder but I'm not sure what you're getting at.Are you saying that iano doesn't have to provide the data which he claims he has?And how is indoctrination in adulthood relevant if he can't establish that the indoctrination even exists?(Ain't I full of questions today? )

---

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