All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

There is no other mechanism by which he can evaluate the complex science that would be involved with making a non-indocrinated decision. (Not that I say even understanding complex science protects against EI but thats for later. We're just trying to establish EI for kids.) The above may clarify. There is no other mechanism. EI by default. Unless a better hypothesis can be presented into which the data fits. I have a hypothesis, I have data in the form of millions of kids who believe evolution which fit the hypothesis. Unless someone else has a hypothesis which better fits the data then the hypothesis stands.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-02-2005 10:25 AM

On exactly the same basis that they evaluate every other proposition whose scientific accuracy they have not yet verified for themselves. Even the most informed evolutionary biologist is not familiar with all the relevant scientific literature, and the same is true for every field of science. Every evaluation of the truth of a proposition must be performed with less than perfect knowledge of the pertinent facts. There must always be some underlying assumptions behind these decisions, what science tries to do is minimise the number and level of subjectivity behind these assumptions.They can make evaluations, their evaluations are simply not as informed as those of people who have more information, of whatever sort. You simply seem to be deciding that if that weighing of information comes down on the side of evolution, no matter how much or how little was known about the topic, then indoctrination must be the answer.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

We KNOW Mother Theory MUST the correct general path (for reasons perhaps as that quoted by Sir Keith below). We're operating at Daughter level so can we think of a Daughter theory that will make it fit in the family and call it

---

In case people don't realize where this "Mother Theory/Daughter Theory" refers to, I proposed a possible falsification of iano's thesis, namely that if scientists were so indoctrinated that they were unable to evaluate the theory of evolution in light of the data, then I would expect that biology would be deeply fragmented into several very different schools, each with a different theory of evolution.Iano proposed his "mother theory/daughter theory" in his response.My reply was that his explanation was insufficient to explain how a single unified theory of evolution (namely the Neo-Darwin consensus, or whatever it is today) could have arisen and be maintained.(Incidently, and criticisms or comments are welcome.)

What took me?
Well I don't get much chance to post over the weekend but I did post yesterday in message 162 Message 162
Guess you must have missed it in all the action that has been going on. I certainly see what you mean by AM being Anger meter. I read that post too. Pretty good I thought.
I don't know whether my son actually does believe it though. I have done my best to teach him the scientific method rather than bare assertions like "evolution is true". The kind of things I try to reinforce are methods of sound reasoning and beyond that he can believe what he likes. I would like to think that he applies reasoning to any views that he may have but there is no way to be sure. His class is only barely starting to scratch the surface of TOE at school right now (during 7th grade that was). More to come in 8th grade I think. I don't know that he has a stance that TOE is true. I sincerely hope he doesn't as it would go against all that I have taught him. It is just that he is willing to look at it at all without simply dismissing the idea out of hand.
I don't think that a Ph.D is necessary to overcome any conditioning that might exist either. My point is that kids either have a knack for fereting out the facts or they don't. When they do, they go looking for it and often become scientists. It is in their nature from a very early age. A college education just teaches them to formalize their methodology. So what you are saying here is that it may well be possible to be indoctrinated in several directions at once but that only one indocrination is accepted, right?.I will go so far as to agree that some indoctrination may take place in a few unusually impressionable children, but IMO the children who are to become scientists when they grow up are most definitely not included in this set since they are already predisposed to being analytically minded.
For example how many kids just accept something that they are told without the cliche comeback "But why?". This may be annoying but it means that they really want to know why something is the way it is. These kind of minds are simply not going to accept something at face value without a darn good reason.
As a child gets older he develops better reasoning skills and becomes ever harder to indoctrinate with stuff like programs on discovery. A few may believe what they see but these few are most definitely not tomorrow's scientists. Anyone that easy to convince simply wouldn't make it as a researcher. Me too. I took a stab at some of it in message 162 Message 162Take a look at the example experiment there and see if you can see any way that EI could bias the results.

Critical. I've had my fair share of that word over the last couple of days. I agree that EI doesn't just repeat mantra like "Evo is true, Evo is true, Evo is true" but the critical your're talking about ain't enough, in fact can easily reinforce EIFolk here had a bit of a ding-dong about what evidence constitutes a refution of evolution (or even strands of it). They demanded that published papers by Professors with recognised standing in the field be produced. As one put it "grad and post grads don't count" Why is that?I think it's because the science at the heart of establishing any strand of evolution is so complex that only a Professor or similar could hope to critically evaluate in a manner to demonstrate refutation/confirmation. A 13 year old kid might enjoy Dinosaur vs Neandrathal Man cartoons, a grad student may grasp the elements of biochemistry but it takes a Professor (or so the argument indicates) to say something definitive about the evidence. And he/she would want to be demonstrabley expert in the relevant field to comment as well. A Ph.D dentist better not start commenting on body symmetry etc..That's the meaning of Critical here. Reading a science mag which adds some of the science and thus raise the stakes above cartoon level is no more use in deciding whether evolution is true than a cartoon. Climbing up the rungs of a ladder to get over a wall doesn't mean you can see over the wall. You have to be at the top to know what's on the other side. Steps along the way may be useful for something but until you get to the top, every basis for believing evolution is EI. Some will point out, correctly, that horizons are being expanded along the way. Whilst that is the case, until someone reaches the position of decide objectively and critically for themselves, EI can only the basis on which they believe. In other words:I cannot demonstrate critically and objectively why I believe + yet I believe nonetheless = EI

I thnk what they should be demanding (don't know if they were or not) is published papers that have been reviewed and scrutinized by peers, at least some of which are full professors of high standing.I don't have a PhD but I do have a whole string of papers that I have published in my field. They all passed the review step and were accepted as valid science by said professors. I have even been asked to review others papers as part of such a board when the paper encroaches on my specific area of expertise.I only have a Bachelors degree so where does that leave me then?The important step is the peer review rather than the individual qualifications. Some people are able to blag their way through education and get all kinds of qualifications without really deserving them. When it comes down to it, a degree or a PhD is only a piece of paper.
A scientists good name and reputation are earned by writing high quality research papers.

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.

quote:

---

iano writes:

​

I have a hypothesis, I have data in the form of millions of kids who believe evolution which fit the hypothesis.

​

All I remember seeing is an unsupported assertion that everybody is "indoctrinated". Actual data would have to include some facts.

---

I hope it is not too rude to remind everyone that the issue doesn't concern what kids today believe, but the level of "indoctrination" experienced by those who are currently practicing scientists (and at least the previous generation of scientists as well) when they were kids.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 02-Aug-2005 06:32 PM

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.

As I said somewhere else, evidence of personal testimony carries limited weight. And your personal circumstances wouldn't represent the majority. Millions of folk out there believe in Evolution and they've never gone to Science College. By what mechanism do you reckon they believe it?Take a look at a recent U.S.A. Poll:"Forty-nine percent of adults believe plants and animals have evolved from some other species while 45 percent do not believe that.
Adults are evenly divided about whether or not apes and man have a common ancestry (46 percent believe we do and 47 percent believe we do not).Again divided, 46 percent of adults agree that "Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries," while 48 percent disagree."(http://harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581)Assuming this was a reputable poll it says that half the American population believe in Evolution. Excluding say 20 million who are too young to watch t.v. that means about 115 million people (most of whom have no scientific education above basic schooling) believe in Evolution. They have no means to evaluate critically/objectively. We have some data (113 million of them) we have a hypothesis about how it happens MI. If you disagree with EI, what alternative do you suggest to it? Lets establish what happens pre-science college. If you accept, widespread and successful EI pre-science college (the poll has given people a choice one way or the other and 113 million of them have definitely chosen for evolution) then we can move on. Otherwise I could be dragged back to "EI isn't shown to exist at all. (Not by you, your too nice -but the lurkers are out there just waitin' to pounce )p.s.
Remember that America a country with a widespread Christian belief system with active promotion of Creationism. In Europe, a Papal acceptance that Evolution is worthy of study, means that Evolution faces less resistance in this largely Roman Catholic continent than it does in America. Like I say, lets establish EI as widespread outside college before looking at inside college.Your suggested experiment PY: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. (iano - this fits Creation theory too - the microbe is still a microbe of the same species as before. Microevolution at work and not a problem for Creationists)If evolution is false then the DNA will be identical to that of the parent. ie. all microbes have same DNA.(iano: if Creation theory is false the same would happen)If evolution is true then they will have slightly different DNA (iano: as Creation theory too predicts)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? (Micro evolution - adaptation within the species and not a problem to Creation theory) You've shown how yourself. You've see the data in the light of evolution and haven't considered other possibilities. You are in college at this stage, if EI (remember 113 million) then college is causing EI to increase in you. Evolution may be right, but your not being given the opportunity to self-evaluate. You're seeing it Evo-tinted light

I think that iano has a bigger problem than the lack of data. The problem is he is convinced of a certain conclusion, a conclusion he clearly feels is obvious, and because this is so obvious to him he is having difficulty figuring out how the argument he is attempting fails.Here is what I think is happening; iano can correct me if I am wrong.Iano is already convinced that the theory of evolution is false; furthermore I assume that he feels that anyone looking at the data objectively should see clearly that the theory of evolution is false. So how is it that the biological scientists do not see that the theory of evolution is false? Iano's solution is that this must be because of previous exposure to the theory of evolution during their entire life must have been intense.So, iano's real argument is: given that scientists are unable to objectively evaluate the theory of evolution in terms of the available data, we conclude that their exposure to evolution during their lives must have had an "indoctrination" effect. This at least would have a small amount of plausibility to it; if scientists are a priori assumed to be biased, then their exposure to the evolutionary "dogma" becomes a plausible explanation for it (although still needing verification, of course).Unfortunately, iano is trying to turn the argument around, which is not logically valid. He is now trying to formulate the argument as: given that the constant exposure to evolution exists, this must result in the scientists being too indoctrinated to evaluate the theory of evolution objectively. It appears to me that iano is committing a fallacy similar to "affirming the consequent".

Interesting point:A 3rd year science students argument is not valid proof against evolution( no papers published, no practical experience, etc), yet the same level of education (no papers published, no experience, etc) is considered sufficient basis for him to say his belief in evolution is a result of scientific evaluation of the evidence and not EI. Which is to be?

Well, so far there seems to be evidence that might support the TOE but no evidence has been shown that EI exists. All I've seen so far is a hypothesis that EI might exist.Isn't this just like so many Creationist attempts, propose some hypothesis and then try to show that it's possible? Isn't this simply more of the ID, CPT, Accelerated Decay rates tactics?Do you have any evidence that EI exists?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Agreed Agreed again I think the issue here is still in the definition of indoctrination. I fully agree that a whole lot of people don't have either the ability or the inclination to go out and find, then evaluate the evidence for themselves. The question is does that make them indoctrinated, lazy, gullible or what?
By this definition at wikepedia.com, the terms "indoctrination" and "education" are often impossible to separate.

quote:

---

The word indoctrination has accumulated negative connotations over the past century. As a result, it is difficult to distinguish it from education, without raising genuine issues of controversy, and some spurious ones too, for no one wants to be informed that they are indoctrinated. Expressions like "common sense" show us how thoroughly indoctrinated we all are. Expressions like religious instruction demonstrate how the word indoctrination is commonly avoided.

---

However, "indocrination" is more often associated with the deliberate delivery of information to an individual with the intention of causing that person to accept it as true without proof.
I don't think that you are suggesting that there is a deliberate conspiracy to spread the word about evolution. That would require a vast organisation with a centralized agenda. Besides, your posts don't really read that way. So what we are left with is the fact that the media is full of information pertaining to evolution. Some of this information may or may not be true. (Face it, most programs on the subject don't even agree with each other about all the details) Sounds like a pretty even mix of people believe and people that don't. Doesn't that point to a rather poor case of indoctrination since about half the regular non-scientific people are able to shrug it off? I would have expected higher if you were correct.Anyway, since it is largely impossible to seperate the definitions for "indoctrination" and "education" while using a rather weak, non-deliberate definition of EI, I have to admit that pretty much everybody in this day and age are exposed to information regarding evolution. I still maintain that the positive reinforcement from TV and books will largely be cancelled out by the negative reinforcement from religious comunities and individuals. The net result should be that no particular bias should be found across society as a whole. This is borne out by your own survey. 50% go one way and 50% go the other.So "education" happens! lets move on now. Two points. (A bit off topic so you don't need to answer them here.)
1) Why would creation predict random mutations in DNA?
2) What is the difference between micro and macro? As I see it macro is just a bunch of cumulated micros. Good answer. I can't really fault your logic and I must admit I walked right into that one.
However I am unaware of a branch of accepted science known as "Creation Theory" or of any of its predictions so I would have to be excused for not looking to a field which appears to offer no usable answers when confronted with a real world problem.
Besides, the premise still stands that my experiment does prove mutations happen. If you want to tell me that "creation science" agrees with me on this point then fine. That would just show that the evidence fits both theories equally. It doesn't invalidate my experimenter's objectivity and doesn't show that the experimenter is biased other than by lack of information. Not knowing the predictions of "Creation Science" does not equate to a bias toward TOE.

Folks, Just noted in Sidelines post that 300 is about the limit for posts to a thread. At the rate we're going we'll be there in no time. No wonder, this has gone berserk! A few days ago I was discussing with someone on the basis "that EI happens to some extent but science can counter the effects". Today I'm debating with someone else who doesn't accept EI occurs at all. Either it does or it doesn't occur at all - not both!I unable to continually revisit the same points as they are freshly made. I thought putting thesis up might focus things and allow things to move stepwise. But it hasn't. The fault for this must lie at the way I've structured things. Apologies for that. Given these problems I've little option but to retire. Many thanks for all the time spent. Some of the argument has been a wonder to behold. Not least, the multitude of ways in which a particular standpoint can be viewed: logical, evidential,philosophically, emotionally, argumentitively etc. If I've learned one thing it's to narrow down the range of possible discussion. Keep them floodgates well battened down!RegardsIan