Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 181 of 312 (228626)
08-01-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by iano
08-01-2005 4:46 PM


Re: indoctrination of a nation, subjugation of damnation
iano writes:
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.
EII (Evolution Indoctrination Indoctrination) is more likely, as the evidence that would be inconsistent with EI is easily recognizable as not being in line with EI, and therefore can be rejected before it corrupts the data pool. Contrast to EI, wherein evidence many times removed from anything in Evolutionary Theory would have to be instantly recognized as being inconsistent with the ToE for it to be rejected before it corrupts the data pool.
Here: According to EI, before it is accepted that iron rusts, and the method by which it rusts, this must first be run through a test to see if it either conforms to the ToE, or doesn't pertain to it at all on any level. If it does pertain to the ToE on some level, but is inconsistent with it; then, according to EI, it must be rejected so that such invalidating data doesn't enter the pool. Now, as iron rusting is basic chemistry, which is the foundation of biology, which is rather entangled with the ToE; both the fact that iron rusts and the process by which it rusts are probably connected to the ToE on some level. So, EI requires that everyone who accepts both the ToE and iron rusting has subconsciously examined every consequence of the latter, and determined that said consequences are either in line with the ToE, or don't impact it at all; as both the theory of rusting and the observation of rust have been accepted. Now, as a mere human could never know that he has examined all possible avenues from something this far removed, EI requires that scientists be gods for it to work.
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-01-2005 10:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 4:46 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 10:03 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 182 of 312 (228639)
08-01-2005 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by iano
08-01-2005 4:10 PM


Re: but what's the problem?
I also addressed your concerns with a logical structure of sorts. Is EI more or less total than the Dark Ages religious indoctrination? Saying that it is more total is an extraordinary claim, saying that it is less is conceding that if evolution is not true, then there is enough freedom of thought allowed by the indoctrination to allow for falsification and dissent.
Given that there is clear evidence of dissent, I put it to you that the indoctrination is less that Dark Ages. Given that we emerged from these Dark Ages with the sciences we now have, EI, if it exists, is not a big problem...plenty of people do not have evolutionary tinted spectacles and are free to gather and present data that runs contrary to the evolutionary model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 4:10 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by randman, posted 08-02-2005 1:31 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 187 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 4:12 AM Modulous has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 183 of 312 (228650)
08-02-2005 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Modulous
08-01-2005 11:27 PM


Re: but what's the problem?
Given that there is clear evidence of dissent, I put it to you that the indoctrination is less that Dark Ages.
I am not sure what you refer to here. The Dark Ages were not a time of monolithic beliefs. That is an incorrect suggestion often erroneously passed on.
There is a reason things like Inquisitions sprang up. They sprang up, not just to deal with a few agnostic-type heretics or Jews or others of non-Christian religions, but due to certain sects of Christianity being so numerous and populous that they threatened the influence of the Pope since these Christians rejected much of Catholicism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Modulous, posted 08-01-2005 11:27 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2005 8:54 AM randman has not replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 184 of 312 (228655)
08-02-2005 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
07-29-2005 6:29 PM


Now let's have fun with your original post.
iano writes:
Scientists who believe in evolution are people.
Therefore, as the prerequisite of EI hasn't been met (scientists=gods), EI is false.
iano writes:
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?
Well, as I am not versed in the intricacies of computer processor design, how can I be sure that the theories that Intel used in designing the PIII chip work? Hmmm... the fact that my computer works is pretty good evidence of this, and I think I'm qualified to make the determination, "My computer works."
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?
If you've dropped the false premise, it cannot be the same reason.
Here:
1. Mommy and Daddy told me that the Earth is a sphere.
2. Mommy and Daddy are always right. (default belief for a child)
3. Therefore, the Earth is a sphere.
Usually, sometime right after Santagate, children recognize that (2) is false. Thus, (3) is recognized to be unsupported -- it's floating. If it is not supported by other means, it will eventually collapse. As (3) can be supported by the evidence, there is a really good replacement for (2) available. Once you've replaced (2) with the evidence, you're no longer using (2).
And now for a tangent:
1. Mommy and Daddy told me that the Bible is right.
2. Mommy and Daddy are always right. (default belief for a child)
3. Therefore, the Bible is right.
Once (2) is recognized to be false, (3) will eventually collapse without support. Of course:
4. The Bible says that the Bible is right.
5. As (3,4); (3).
...it just happens to be self-supporting. You only need (2) for that initial leg-up. After that the circular argument is the only support it needs. Even though it's not good support, it's still different than supporting it with (2), so the reason for belief has changed.
iano writes:
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?
As I touched on in my previous post, science is simply too complex and interconnected for this to be the case. It also isn't in line with the sheer amount of evidence consistent with the ToE.
Here: You're now my prime suspect in the murder of JFK. You shot him -- I know you did. Nothing is gonna convince me otherwise. Now I'm gonna present the evidence that's consistent with my theory:
1. Guns and bullets exist, so you could've had them.
2. You have hands, so you could've held the gun.
3. You have eyes, so you could've aimed the gun.
4. You have fingers, so you could've fired the gun.
5. You have legs, so you could've gotten to Dallas.
See? It all adds up!
iano writes:
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. Or to put it another way, it is impossible for them to demonstrate that they aren't wearing evolution-tinted spectacles every time they weigh up evidence. Spectacles that started tinting when they were young and got increasingly more tinted as time went on to the point of only letting in light coloured 'Evolution'. Let me sum up by coining a phrase in saying that evolutionary-believing scientists have been subject to evolutionary indoctrination, henceforth EI, and that one logical outworking of this, should my case hold together, is that evolution has no basis in fact. It is not true.
That's a form of argumentum ad logicam; ie, the method used is invalid, therefore the conclusion is false.
1. My lawn is green.
2. My lawn is wet. (it rained)
3. My towel is green.
4. Therefore, my towel is also wet.
Completely invalid, but that doesn't mean that (4) is false. I just took a shower, so my towel is wet.
Anyway, what your proposition boils down to is, "If you were taught something, and you still believe it, it is false." Pretty silly, if you ask me.
iano writes:
To get started it would be useful if I could provide a mechanism by which folk (scientist and non-scientist alike) are EI'd. The mechanism by which EI works is lifelong and repeated exposure to statements which say or imply that Evolution is true.
Why don't you work on something more pervasive, like tSiBI? I mean, our kids are continually being told that the sky is blue, which results in them looking at the sky through blue-tinted spectacles. And OMG, the French need some serious help! I mean, "Le ciel est bleu?" We should send in the Marines to put a stop to that nonsense!!
iano writes:
MI takes many forms: kids nature programmes, tv ads, cartoons, friends taunts, games played, science lessons all the way through school, popular science books, science fiction, natural history programmes,toys, eminent looking scientists saying it's true, early interest hobbies in things scientific, films, magazines, .. and the fact that even the dog in the street knows it.
At least dogs don't have to worry about tSiBI coloring their perceptions.
iano writes:
The MI has virtually nothing which opposes it. There is no scientific alternative presented which says our existance is the result of another mechanism (or if there is, it's, relatively speaking, a side issue and not comparable to the mass-influence of the MI - the cogs and gears of which are listed above). Not even religion will necessarily affect it's workings. Many who have a faith: Christian, Buddist, Hindi etc will not consider there to be conflict between their belief and the acceptance that Evolution is true.
I've heard that some Christians even go so far as to deny the existence of the firmament! I mean, it's obvious that the athesist evilutionist scientists simply refuse to accept that all our spacecraft keep smashing into it. Even on the 2 instances where the Truth burned through their spectacles -- where they couldn't deny that the space shuttle came back to Earth in pieces -- they explained it away with 'O-ring failure' and 'tile damage'. Will their lies never cease???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 07-29-2005 6:29 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 7:12 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 185 of 312 (228659)
08-02-2005 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by randman
08-01-2005 12:23 PM


Re: you go first and back up your claim
randman
Vaccinations do not require belief in ToE for them to work, nor for someone to have an understanding of them.
Belief has nothing to do with the vaccinations effectiveness so yes belief in ToE is not required.
Now please answer my questions.
sidelined writes:
Can you explain why the use of cowpox on humans{the first vaccine ever} is effective in preventing smallpox from infecting humans? How can the pus from an infected animal,which when introduced to the human being result in defense against a human disease? Indeed, why would a disease of cows, result in a mild infection in humans?
Why is streptococcus Pneumonia resistant to penicillin?Indeed,it has developed resistance to several antibiotics.Can you explain how this is accomplished?
If you wish you can bring up an alternate explanation to ToE but please answer the questions just the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 12:23 PM randman has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 186 of 312 (228661)
08-02-2005 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by iano
08-01-2005 10:48 AM


Re: Oi Sidelined....
iano
The point I am trying drive home is to ask the questions pertainent to the puzzle. We enlist the aid of vaccines to combat disease and after time we discover that the vaccines no longer work.What changes to allow this to happen?
In my first example we have an observation by people that people who came down with cowpox were confered immunity from the often deadly smallpox disease.Now what is the means by which a disease of cows could be placed in humans and thereby trigger within our immune system the means to defend against a human disease? Cows are after all not human are they? What is common between the two different species that allows this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 10:48 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 4:28 AM sidelined has replied

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


Message 187 of 312 (228671)
08-02-2005 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Modulous
08-01-2005 11:27 PM


Re: but what's the problem?
Think you're mixing your metaphors. The Dark Ages are different times tha the time of God-at-the-centre of the Universe science. Newton "the father of science" et al lived in the latter. They could hardly be described as dark ages. On the contrary, it was the beginning of the Light Ages and the birth of the Scientific Method based science. The time when an assumption was made that, given (they believed) the Universe was the work of an ordered, logical Creator, it could therefore be investigated using SM (which presumes order and logic). Whilst there is much hatred of the idea of God-centred science there is too a lack of appreciation for the very thing which caused men and women then to start the very science folk now use in their condemnation. Shooting oneself in the foot perhaps
But that'd be a philosophical discussion
This message has been edited by iano, 02-Aug-2005 11:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Modulous, posted 08-01-2005 11:27 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2005 9:16 AM iano has not replied

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


Message 188 of 312 (228674)
08-02-2005 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by sidelined
08-02-2005 3:14 AM


Re: Oi Sidelined....
Hi SL. Commonality between two species does not infer common descent except if such relationship is assumed. No more than the fact that a 17mm spanner that fits a correspondingly sized bolt of a space shuttle infers that a space shuttle is a common descendant of a motorcycle with a similar sized bolt. You could equally assume that a Creator used similar componants in a wide variety of the mechanical aspects of his creation. IOW, would an engineer (a Creator) go to to trouble of developing a totally different fixing method when an existing method (the 17mm bolt) works perfectly well. Not if he was efficient he wouldn't.
(As a bit of light relief along the way, would anybody else like to suggest a way in which discoveries in Evolution science have any useful,practical applications. Or is it just a sterilised history lesson from which we draw nothing of worth other than (tentative) knowledge about how it all came about?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by sidelined, posted 08-02-2005 3:14 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by kongstad, posted 08-02-2005 5:23 AM iano has not replied
 Message 213 by sidelined, posted 08-02-2005 8:57 AM iano has replied

kongstad
Member (Idle past 2869 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 189 of 312 (228679)
08-02-2005 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by iano
08-02-2005 4:28 AM


Re: Oi Sidelined....
quote:
Commonality between two species does not infer common descent except if such relationship is assumed
But this is no different than any other science. the fact that a stone drops to the ground every time you drop it does not infer the existence of gravity, except if the existence of gravity is assumed.
Those who are indoctrinated by the theory of gravity, do not examine the theory that it is invisible angels that push the stone to the earth.
Would it be fair to say that you think that scientists are indoctrinated against considering theological explanations? EG when they look at the fossil evidence they see it as conformation of their assumption of evolution, and not as confirmation of the Lord, or the "unspecified Intelligent Designer" saw fit to develop organisms stepwise?
If this is indeed your stance, then you cannot say that there is no support for ToE, but only that alternative theories are not given fair hearing. Even though one assumes a particular theory, reality must fit in with the theory, or else it must be amended.
Think of Newtons physics. They work very well in most day to day situations (barring all the modern situations where relativistic effect are noticable - GPS etc).
Now if scientists where NI, Newtonian Indoctrinated, they would reject reletavistic theories. But they would still be able to test Newtonian Physics. They would notice that in most circumstances their calculations would be dead on - simply because Newtonian physics are indeed a very good approximation.
Now someone who broke free of NI would perhaps discover Relatavistic physics, and could show that alle the predictions and calculations of Newtonian physics still apply for Relativistic, but Relativistic would also predict for instance why clocks in orbit differ from clocks on earth.
So even assuming indoctrination, the scientists are still able to test their theories. So your claim that if there were such an indoctrination, then we could say nothing of the truth status of ToE is wrong.
even though we can never know if our theories are true in any science. Indoctrination does not stop us from discovering false assumptions.
/Soren

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 4:28 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Wounded King, posted 08-02-2005 6:24 AM kongstad has replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 190 of 312 (228685)
08-02-2005 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by iano
07-30-2005 11:00 AM


Re: Scientific Method
iano writes:
You imply that whilst the person may have been indoctrinated up to this point the spectacles are somehow removed and they can see more or less clearly. But you don't include a mechanism by which the EI is magically removed. Well you do. The mechanism is a non-absolute, EI-interpreted SM. I reckon that some branches of science are less exposed to indoctrination that others, so the SM can be better interpreted and applied. My OP however, suggests that EI is so widespread and so total, that the science itself must be binned. It will never be able to haul itself out of the cauldron of indoctrination. A victim of it's own success if you will.
Those pesky Creationists throw a monkey wrench into the works, though. They have no compuction over using the Bifurcation and argumentum ad ignorantiam logical fallacies; ie, "Either Evolution or Creationism. If Evolution is not proved true, it is false; and therefore Creationism is true." As they consider anything that doesn't support the ToE as support for their position, they're in a perfect position to see anything that the EI'ed would be leaving out, as that's exactly what they're looking, hoping, and praying for. However, all their looking has turned up nothing. If evolution-tinted spectacles cause people to find evidence of evolution in and under every rock, why don't anti-evolution-tinted spectacles find disproof of evolution in and under those same rocks?
The methods that Creationists use is either a tacit admission that they cannot cut science off at the knees by demonstrating biased evidence-gathering, or evidence that Creationists are even dumber than they appear, as they have missed such an exceedingly obvious opportunity.
iano writes:
Don't forget that scientists are people first, scientists second. Whilst philisophically SM may be about demolishing hypothesis if one can, back in the real world, it can often fall very short of the ideal. The Einstein you referred to above was the same one who inserted a 'cosmological constant' in his general theory of relativity, such was his distaste for the obvious implication - the Universe had a beginning. He removed it later, after meeting Hubble and Lamaitre at Mount Wilson Observatory and seeing for himself that the Universe, it appeared, was indeed expanding. He confessed that adding the constant was "the biggest blunder of my life".
(Before folk leap in and use this as an example of Sciences tendency towards self-correction, note Einsteins initial motivation for the constant. He didn't like what his science was telling him and adapted the science so that it would tell what he wanted to hear.
No, Einstein didn't like what the math was telling him. So, he added the constant, and thus had a new hypothesis. It was tested, and falsified.
Here:
A train leaves Station A and, 1 hour later, arrives at Station C, which is 100 miles distant. How fast is the train going at midpoint B?
Now, the average speed is 100mph, but that doesn't mean that I have to have it traveling 100mph at point B. How's this:
The train travels at 81.37mph until the 40.68 mile mark. Then it instantly accelerates to light speed for 0.0001 seconds, covering a distance of 18.62 miles, and then instantly decelerates back to 81.37mph for the remainder of the journey.
How fast is the train going at midpoint B? 186,282 miles per second.
My math works out fine, and now I'm hypothesizing that the train is moving @ c @ point B. Pretty cool, eh? So, am I now a 1337 scientist? Heck no! I haven't done anything but plug numbers into Microsoft Calculator. The science comes when I sit my ass down at point B and clock the train.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by iano, posted 07-30-2005 11:00 AM iano has not replied

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


Message 191 of 312 (228687)
08-02-2005 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by kongstad
08-02-2005 5:23 AM


Re: Oi Sidelined....
quote:
Commonality between two species does not infer common descent except if such relationship is assumed
But this is no different than any other science. the fact that a stone drops to the ground every time you drop it does not infer the existence of gravity, except if the existence of gravity is assumed.
Neither of these infer anything, they imply them.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by kongstad, posted 08-02-2005 5:23 AM kongstad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by kongstad, posted 08-02-2005 6:34 AM Wounded King has replied

kongstad
Member (Idle past 2869 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 192 of 312 (228689)
08-02-2005 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Wounded King
08-02-2005 6:24 AM


Re: Oi Sidelined....
quote:
quote:
Commonality between two species does not infer common descent except if such relationship is assumed
But this is no different than any other science. the fact that a stone drops to the ground every time you drop it does not infer the existence of gravity, except if the existence of gravity is assumed.
Neither of these infer anything, they imply them.
Please forgive my lack in english skills, English being my second language, but I think we are in agreement.
My point is simply the same as, I think it was Hume, who said that causality is always an assumption, and can never be directly observed. This goes for the rock dropping, as well as for evolution.
The way to test our theories is to assume the theory correct and try our hardest to find things that makes no sense given our assumptions. In the case of gravity this could mean a rock hovering in the air when you drop it, and in the case of ToE it could be a fully formed Homo sapiens found in the precambrian strata.
/soren

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Wounded King, posted 08-02-2005 6:24 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Wounded King, posted 08-02-2005 6:38 AM kongstad has not replied
 Message 196 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 7:22 AM kongstad has replied

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


Message 193 of 312 (228691)
08-02-2005 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by kongstad
08-02-2005 6:34 AM


nit-picking
I appreciate you were only following on from iano's misusage of the term, I just wanted to try and stop the confusion propagating any further.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by kongstad, posted 08-02-2005 6:34 AM kongstad has not replied

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


Message 194 of 312 (228702)
08-02-2005 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by DominionSeraph
08-02-2005 2:33 AM


Theses anybody?
Have a look at thesis 1. DS and work from there with the logic. It is a debate which revolves around logic. It the theses presented which need to be logically dismantled (evidence and philosophy play lesser roles). Examples of Santa are enjoyable but the terminology of the theses needs to be used to show, logically, they are false

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-02-2005 2:33 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by kongstad, posted 08-02-2005 7:18 AM iano has not replied

kongstad
Member (Idle past 2869 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 195 of 312 (228704)
08-02-2005 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by iano
08-02-2005 7:12 AM


Re: Theses anybody?
When the premis for your thesis fails, the thesis fails - or rather you can no longer support your thesis. So if there is no indoctrination, or if the indoctrination does not make it impossible for the indoctrinated to evaluate the indoctrinated assumptions via the scientific method, you have no thesis. Logically or practically.
/soren

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 7:12 AM 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