|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Kongstad writes: 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. Would you like to apply that mechanism to the theses in post 1. There are 4. I would suggest starting at 1 (although this has been apparently accepted on a peer basis and would be difficult to even start arguing against I think). Aside:Cow/human similarilty fits Evolution theory as well as it does Creationist theory. That Evo theory is considered a better one re: all the data, makes no difference to THIS data. Common descent or designer God - each can claim the glory. Thus, it's use as an example of practical benefits of Evo theory can equally be claimed by Creationist theory (shoddy though it may be in comparison) Any other clear practical benefits which arise from Evolution science ALONE? Not a debate, just citing one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
crashfrog writes: Because it's ludicrous to assert that you can "indoctrinate" someone in the truth. When it's true, it's called "education." Have a read of the definition of Indoctrination (post 1). If a 12 year old believes in Evolution then they have been indoctinated into doing so. The truth or falsehood of the indoctrination affects the fact it is indoctrination not one whit
As it turns out, the man on the (American) street generally doesn't believe evolution. Why someone doesn't believe Evolution is not the issue here. The title is All Evolution believing kids, teenagers, students, Ph.D-er, Scientists, Peer reviewist etc etc. That all that's being discussed
It's what Christianists lament all the time, of course - that college students turn from their superstitious faith in the light of education. A lot of your post is taken up with stuff that has nothing to do with the threads premise. If you want to debate what's being debated then by all means do so. I'm not being smart just that it takes alot of time to read and respond so there's too little to go off on side tracks - heartfelt and all as they may be. Read post 1,CF. There are 4 theses. These are logic statement by and large so need to be dealt with from that perspective
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
iano writes: '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. PaulK writes: 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. Maybe not in particular (forgive my lack of knowledge on the particulars) but presented all the same. And not without a reason. For someone to present PE there must have been data which didn't fit the previous (mother + daughter) model at the time, otherwise why would someone try and explain something that was perfectly explainable within the current framework. PE was presented because of a need. And if you look at my quote above you'll see that it fits Chiropteras mechanism of theories, to whit: if data doesn't fit the framework then you modify the daughter framework but leave mother framework alone. Some would say that this is "perfect science" But it also happens to fit EI perfectly too. A bit the same way cow/human commonality fits evo/creationist theory equally well. And so we go on...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Crashfrog writes: 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. I'll debate with you CF, within the framework of theses/logic/decency etc. I haven't though spent this amount of time trying to build a (to be shown) shoddy case to take your insult howevers. Neither do I deserve them. Last chance. Debate the arguments using the tools above ...or move on somewhere else. Personally, I'd prefer you debate...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If a 12 year old believes in Evolution then they have been indoctinated into doing so. The truth or falsehood of the indoctrination affects the fact it is indoctrination not one whit Nonsense. When you tell someone a truth that they're not able to verify themselves, the word for that is "education." I've never been to Egypt, but I am told that the capital is Cairo. Does that mean that I've been indoctrinated by Cairo-ists, or that I've been educated by geographers? "Indoctrination" as a word is meaningless the way you're employing it. It's ridiculous to assert that educating someone in a truth is "indoctrination."
The title is All Evolution believing kids, teenagers, students, Ph.D-er, Scientists, Peer reviewist etc etc. Scientists in relevant fields believe it because of the evidence. Everybody else believes it because they've been educated. What's the problem here? Are you just against education in general?
If you want to debate what's being debated then by all means do so. We're getting to the very core of your argument, here. You believe that all education is indoctrination; you believe that all the scientists who believe in evolution are mistaken when they say that they were convinced by the evidence. (Never mind that most biologists must, according to logic, be persons who as laypeople rejected evolution, at least in America.) Well, scientists as a whole are people who regularly abandon the beliefs of their childhood, or that they held as laypeople, in favor of new positions derived from the evidence. Why would evolution be different?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kongstad Member (Idle past 2890 days) Posts: 175 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Joined: |
quote: OK. I'll assume you need a Ph.D or a wide experience in the field base your trust in evolution on anything but EI. Now I would also claim that anyone with firsthand knowledge of the evidence might on their own obtain trust in evolution - for instance looking at the fossil evidence. If this does not add up to wide experience in your terminology then my claim would be at odds with the assumption, and thus either my claim or your thesis must be amended. Now I would claim that knowledge of ToE and access to fossil evidence like the multitude of transitional forms between humans and the other apes in itself would be enough to instill trust in a person, even without EI. And thus in my oppinion your thesis fails.
quote: Your claim here is stronger than i thesis 1. Now you talk about EI influence on science. I would make your claim stronger. since all biology is ultimately founded in ToE, no subject pertaining wholely or in part on biology can today be without influence from ToE, and no scientist can be without influence from ToE, or EI as you name it. notice though that this has no bearing on the question of the scientists ability to evaluate the science in her field. Even though one is influenced by something, it does not in any way follow that your ability to be objective is in any way harmed.
quote: This is simply false. I would agree she could not evaluate all claims - us humans usually only live about a hundred years, so we simply do not have the time to evaluate first hand all claims. But every single claim could in theory be evaluated by the scientist. Either by repeating the measurements (doing the observations) of the original, or by secondary means. Peer review is one method that removes faith from the equation. It is not hard to believe that one person would make a mistake and make faulty science. Dembski, Behe or Wells are excellent examples of this. But through the method of peer review many scientists are involved in publication - boosting the credibility. So even though faith in peer review might still be only faith - this faith is grounded in something else than EI, it is grounded in the scientific method as examplified by peer review.
quote: Well I'll agree on that one - you can never fully protect yourself against deceit and errors. The trivial conclusion from this is that you cannot in any way know for sure that anything is real. All your experiences might be your own delusions. But for your conclusion - lets se of your definition of indoctrination:
quote: Since the SM in any way teaches to critically review every assumption, any definition of the SM that holds this as minimum will constantly work against any EI there might or might not be. This would invalidate your point - since critical review - will counteract any EI - not in all cases of course - but just one will suffice. Hence scientist can base their science in fact - even though they might be EI'ed. I think it is abundally clear that even from the existence of EI does not logically follow that scientists cannot critically evaluate the indoctrinated assumptions - hence your point is moot. We are of course left with problem that we cannot be sure in each instance if a conclusion is reached by a process of critical thinking, or by indoctrination. But this is the basic premis of all science, indeed of all experiences in life. /Soren
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I haven't though spent this amount of time trying to build a (to be shown) shoddy case to take your insult howevers. Neither do I deserve them. You'll have to show me where you've been insulted; it certainly wasn't in any of my posts. Unless you can't tell the difference between criticism leveled at your position and invective leveled at yourself? If you can't approach this debate with the detachment neccessary, and if you can't handle frank criticism directed at your views, then I suggest you move along, because you're not going to like it here. I'm not about to desist chasing down your ludicrous misstatements simply because your feelings might get hurt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kongstad Member (Idle past 2890 days) Posts: 175 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Joined: |
quote: OK
OP writes: 1. to teach (a person or group) to accept a view, ideology etc uncritically, esp by systematic repetition. If you read the definition of indoctrination supplied in the OP, you will see that it hinges on the fact that the acceptance must be uncritical. Now I am sure that there are many examples of evolution being in taught that way - but I also know for a fact that most, or all science writing promotes a critical view of the conclusions presented. Furthermore a lot of popular science is presented in a way encopuraging critical thinking. finally there are plenty of textbooks used in all types of education that encourages critical thinking, also with regards to evolution. I would claim that science curricula as a rule teach critical thinking. /Soren
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Wounded king writes: 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. I never implied that this was a primarily evidential debate. I did mention earlier in the proceedings that it wasn't going to take that tack. Logic WK, logic. Sure evidence is required along the way to bolster the logic, but it's not the prime argument. Evidence? Okay... Anybody up to x age/education, who has not got sufficient educational tools to evaluate the data for themselves can only believe Evolution through a process of indoctrination. There is no other way for them to believe it. The logical conclusion is that EI exists and operates. Now the debate moves to try and figure where this EI can switch to self-decision. By all means take part. Have a look at 4 theses in post 1 and pick the level at which you feel your debate can commence. Some of your peers here seem to think the level required to disprove (and hence prove) evolution lies at professor/very experienced in the field level. Maybe you agree, maybe not. That's debate for ya!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kongstad Member (Idle past 2890 days) Posts: 175 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Joined: |
quote: They can simply have been taught about evolution and be taught think critically, or indeed just been taught about evolution, without the teaching instilling uncritical acceptance. Hence you have not supplied any arguments for the necessity of EI. /Soren
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Logic WK, logic. If you're trying to make statements about the real world, you need evidence, not logic. Deduction is not a process that can lead to truths about the world because the axiomatic conditions of the universe are not avaliable to us. That's why scientists stick with evidence, not logic. We left the Aristotlian view behind centuries ago. Try to keep up, ok?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
From the Encylopedia of astrobiology, astronomy and spaceflight
"A parameter introduced in 1917 by Einstein into the description of the universe in terms of the general theory of relativity, in order to ENSURE static (i.e. not expanding or contracting) cosmological models. At that time, the expansion of the universe was still unknown. Einstein later described his invention of the cosmological constant as HIS GREATEST BLUNDER. Einstein's cosmological constant was later interpreted....." Google "Einstein's Cosmological Constant" "blunder" for those who think I may be quote mining. there's too many listing to count. The key words are 'ensure' (which means not-objective) and 'greatest blunder' which means he didn't think himself he was just trying to cover the angles
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
That's debate for ya!! Not for me it isn't, for me that is nothing more than logic chopping and mental masturbation. In the absence of any evidence, and what you presented wasn't evidence, then you are just blowing smoke. You can make up any sort of ludicrous yet valid logical proposition if you don't require your initial premises to themselves be true. It is the truth of your premises which requires some evidence to back them up. Lets look at your very initial premise...
Scientists who believe in evolution are people. People now and people before they were scientists. When they were just people, these folk heard about evolution. And what they would have heard is a single, unified and repeated message. And that message was: "Evolution is FACT!". This is plainly rubbish, as any number of people have pointed out to you, therefore your argument is rubbish Q.E.D.. I'm quite happy to accept that your logic is fine, but your premises are deeply flawed. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Crashfrog writes: Try to keep up, ok? I'm afraid that's the end of discussion between you and me on this one CF...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
wounded king writes: Not for me it isn't, for me that is nothing more than logic chopping and mental masturbation. You may not like the hypothesis WK but the above doesn't absolve you from dealing with it. You've a simple option. Tell me one other way by which folk who have yet to aquire the education and experience necessary to evaluate the suitability of Evolution as an explaination of how it all came to be, believe Evolution. A 13 year old is asked: "did man come from apes?" and replies "Yes he did - I saw it on tv last week". This data needs explaining - the kid hasn't got a Ph.D. EI is the hypothesis which best explain the data - so gets accepted until shown otherwise.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024