All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

That's a good question. In one breath the creationists say that evolutionary scientists either ignore inconvenient data or twist it to fit the theory, then in the next breath they claim that the theory of evolution is so elastic that it can be changed to fit any sort of data whatsoever. They certainly aren't consistent on this point, are they?Anyway, let us suppose that the theory of evolution is incorrect as a description of the history of life on earth, and let us suppose that the data contradicts the theory of evolution without ambiguity. Then I think a better question to ask would be:What sort of process would be necessary to so indoctrinate evolutionary scientists that they would be unable to see that the data contradicts the theory of evolution?Having had some experience in the sciences, and so knowing how science operates, and knowing something about how people actually deal with real data and their beliefs, I would think one would need a combination of intensive brainwashing (that is, complete isolation of the subjects from the outside world, and the subjects being exposed to the desired message without break their entire waking moment), coupled with some sort of selection process that would reject the subjects that were not susceptible to this brainwashing. I certainly do not see how having the word "evolution" mentioned a bunch of times on TV and normal primary and secondary school students being exposed to evolution for one small part of the school day for one small part of the school year could result in this sort of brainwashing.At any rate, then given this totalitarian mind-control scenario, I would say that, no, I would not expect that it would be possible for any changes that have occurred to be possible -- the subjects (sad victims that they would be) would be too indoctrinated to move even slightly off the recieved dogma. But then, I could be wrong -- I am not familiar enough with this sort of pathology.

quote:

---

So complex in all probability, that only other experts in the field can truly comprehend every critical piece of minutae when deciding whether to accept or reject a particular morsel presented, as Science.

---

This is true for all the sciences. If one is going to discuss this problem, then why choose evolutionary science? The problem is that the theory of evolution is a problem for a certain vocal religious sect that has an unpopular political agenda that goes beyond the teaching of biology. The choice of biology, then, seems a tad suspicious. If one wants to discuss the possibility of scientific indoctrination and biases, why not choose a different field of science, one that doesn't have the political and religious baggage associated with it?-

quote:

---

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?

---

As sidelined mentioned, that would depend on the commitment that a person wishes to make to study the issues. I see nothing that prevents anyone from becoming acquiring enough knowledge to be able to critique any field. It would take a lot of time and effort, especially if one were to do this without being enrolled in a formal college program, but if one really feels that this is important perhaps she needs to make this commitment.-

quote:

---

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?

---

This is pretty vague. I'll assume it's made less vague below.-

quote:

---

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.

---

First, if I understand this post, the question is whether these "evolution-tinted spectacles" makes it impossible to objectively evaluate data, and to see that the data contradicts the accepted theory.Either scientists are capable of objectively evaluating data or they are not. If it is not possible to determine this one way or the other, this becomes a rather sterile discussion.-

quote:

---

...One logical outworking of this, should my case hold together, is that evolution has no basis in fact. It is not true

---

Actually, this is not true. Even if scientists were being indoctrinated, it is entirely possible that the dogma into which they are being indoctrinated reflects reality.-

quote:

---

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, ..

---

First, it is to be demonstrated that this exposure is as far-reaching as is claimed. Current biological scientists are about my age, and I can attest that I was never exposed to evolutionary thinking to this degree.Second, the claim is not whether people know of evolution, nor whether they are predisposed to accept it. The claim is whether scientists are are capable of objectively evaluating the data and determining whether the data falsifies the accepted theory. It is by no means obvious that such exposure, even if it does occur, could possibly lead to such "indoctrination".-

quote:

---

The mechanism is not purposely directed by anyone.

---

And that is the biggest weakness of this proposition. It hard to imagine how such a consistent and successful indoctrination could occur without some centralized authority determining and maintaining the orthodoxy. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.-

quote:

---

Up until the time they become qualified to Ph.D level or have wide experience in a scientific field, everybody who believes in evolution, can only do so as a result of EI.

---

This is false. There are aspects of any theory that are broad enough that inconsistencies can be detected with relatively modest levels of education. One can smell shit in a room even when one is standing in the hall.-

quote:

---

The only field a scientist may claim that no EI has influenced his science is the field where he is trained in or has wide experience of.

---

This, too, is not true. While it is true that no one can be an expert in every single field, any scientist has to have a fairly good enough knowledge of several fields outside of her immediate area of expertise.-------------------------------------The claim being made is that the scientists engaging in studies related to the theory of evolution are predisposed to believe that their data will confirm the accepted theory, and this predisposition makes it impossible for them to objectively evaluate the data and to conclude that the accepted theory is wrong when the data so indicates.I have already mentioned historical examples to show that there is good reason to reject this claim; nor does psychological or sociological studies show that the sort of "indoctrination" that is being claimed is capable of producing this situation.--------------------------Further, I have to ask the following question:How would it be possible to falsify this claim? What evidence would indicate that this indoctrination does not occur?Let me be more specific. Let me present another scenario which I call "The Facts of Life" (FoL):Proposition:
The theory of evolution is the correct description of the history of life on earth.Conclusions:
If the theory of evolution is correct, then the actual physical data will support this. Then an evolutionary scientists, doing science, evaluating data, will correctly conclude that the theory of evolution is true.Now, how do we determine which scenario, EI or FoL, is correct?

A set of propositions has been made:Evolutionary scientists have been exposed to evolutionary thought since they were young children. This exposure has biased them to look at the world in terms of the theory of evolution, and they must examine the data through this bias. As a consequence, evolutionary scientists cannot be sure that their data really confirms the theory of evolution; furthermore, we laypersons do not have the training necessary to check that their results and conclusions are sufficiently free of this bias so as to reliably confirm the theory of evolution.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.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.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.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.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.

quote:

---

In debate, motivation is irrelevant.

---

I agree. However, you did post a comment that was irrelevent to the debate, to wit: In so far that you yourself have pretty much volunteered to give your motives for this debate, I simply give a warning. Just as you are claiming that scientists are looking at the evidence through "evolution tinted lenses", so I am suggesting that you may be taking part in this discussion with "creation tinted lenses", and so you may not be capable of objectively evaluating your argument or mine. You may think about this or not; as you say, the arguments will stand on their own merits, and I will say no more about motivations (unless they become relevant).-

quote:

---

But Rome wasn't built in a day. I've got to get my theses up and standing before adding more.

---

Understandable. But I'll give you a warning -- threads here are closed when the post count reaches 300 or there abouts. It is always possible to start another thread to continue, of course, but you might want to keep this in mind.-

quote:

---

It may be right it may be wrong....

---

True; but your statement was that if it can be shown that evolutionary scientists are indoctrinated as you say, then evolution is necessarily false. As long as we recognize the correct statement is "if the scientists conclusions cannot be trusted, then we cannot be certain of the truth or falsehood of evolution" then there is no need to say more. It doesn't appear to be important to the debate anyway.-

quote:

---

If not how can you prove your belief. If you can't then on what basis do you believe it. A faith-basis is the only one I can think of. Faith isn't science, it's Religion

---

I can't prove any of my beliefs. As far as I know, I may be in a large studio ala The Truman Show, surrounded by actors, and all that I have ever learned may be false, part of the script. I can't prove that this is not the case. However, I have to make a judgement as to the likelihood of this being true.In the same way, I cannot prove that evolution is true. All I can do is take the two scenarios (1) scientists' bias make their conclusions untrustworthy and (2) the scientists can be trusted to give a reasonable account about the world that we live in, and try to determine which one is more likely. Right now, I find (1) to be too unlikely to be given much credence. I don't have to know anything about evolution -- all I need to know is how science is done, and how biases affect the judgements of real people in real life, and make reasonable extrapolations.I will also add that my being an expert in the evolutionary sciences would not help my case anyway; by your own proposition, I could be too biased by my life-long indoctrination to be able to trust my professional judgement.So you want to have your cake and eat it, too. Since I am not an expert in any of the biological or geological sciences, I have no reliable way of knowing that the theory of evolution is correct. But if I did have expertise in one or more of the biological sciences I still would have no reliable way of knowing that the theory of evolution is correct. You are trying to make your proposition unfalsifiable. The problem is that if you were to succeed in making it unfalsifiable, the argument becomes merely an academic one with no practical significance.-

quote:

---

Detecting inconsistancies doesn't mean anything is proved one way or the other.

---

For a theory that has been as verified as the theory of evolution, verified through many different observations in many different field using many different methodologies, then you are partially correct; a few minor inconsistencies will not prove anything one way or the other. This is not just evolution; it is how all the sciences operate. It is when the inconsistencies begin to add up, or become to systematic, and/or when someone discovers a new theory that explains the inconsistencies, that a theory will be rejected. That is not the fault of evolutionary theory, not the result of bias; it is just how all the sciences work.That said, this does give a way of proving that the scientists are indoctrinated. Start another thread, and try to give evidence that clearly disputes the theory of evolution but is ignored or "twisted" by the scientists. That is, provide examples of bias.-

quote:

---

I don't have to prove whether the MI is blind or conspiratorial.

---

My point is that without guidance and maintenance by a central authority your indoctrination methods are too inefficient, haphazard, and unreliable to produce the effects that you claim.
-

quote:

---

According to folk here you must be Expert In Your Field, have published in that field etc,etc to be qualified to comment.

---

That is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go as far as some people think. The main reason I ever use an argument like this is to chastise someone for trying to argue against evolution without making even a minimal effort to understand it.-

quote:

---

We know EI exists.

---

No, that is the topic of the debate, whether the "EI" that you describe exists.-------Finally, my comment on "FoL" was simply to make a point. There are two explanations (and perhaps more) for the observations that you make. I am asking why we should consider your explanation any more likely than mine. "FoL" can be falsified, by the presentation of evidence that scientists are ignoring or radically twisting data to fit their theories. I am asking how your "EI" can be falsified. I suggested one way in another post -- you replied that you need to examine it a little more closely. Fair enough.

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.

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.)

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

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".

Well, what do you expect? If I understand your proposition correctly, there are at least three statements that can be debated:1) Children are exposed to a constant barrage of evolutionary theory;2) The exposure leads to uncritical acceptance of the theory of evolution; and3) This implies that biological scientists are too biased to objectively evaluate the theory of evolution in light of the data.Each one of these three points can be debated and are being debated. Sadly, the third statement is the one I find most interesting, but there seems to have been little interest in discussing that one.

What I'm saying is the landscape is littered with dead horses, and while you all are beating that particular one, I'm waving my hands yelling, "What about this one? What about this one?"Iano is spending a lot of time trying to make a case that there is a constant exposure to evolution, and that this leads to an acceptance to the validity of the theory of evolution. So much time, in fact, it appears as if he assumes that if he can establish this acceptance then the conclusion that scientists are too biased to be able to objectively evaluate the theory must automatically follow.However, it doesn't automatically follow. In fact, as I have written several times, there is good reason to believe that scientists are not biased to this degree. Since I am assuming that iano's main point is this alleged bias, I would expect that he would be spending more time on this.

Nice post, jsmall.

quote:

---

We have to remember that evolution started with very simple data that was fairly easy to interpret.

---

And much of that evidence is still good today, and still simple enough for the layperson interpret for herself -- in factmuch of the evidence used by Darwin is either not disputed even by creationists, or could be obtained by a layperson with a little bit of work.This is what I was trying to say earlier, but you said it much, much better than I.

quote:

---

One thing you see with indoctrination is that the group derides the motives of their critics. They typically will not accept that critics are genuinely in disagreement based on an honest review, from their perspective, of what they know as true.

---

Do you mean like the way creationists keep claiming that evolutionists are trying to promote a naturalistic religion? Or how creationists insist that I accept evolution "to justify living in sin"?Edited to add:Wait a minute. Aren't you the one who keeps claiming that evolutionists are deliberately committing fraud using Haeckle's drawings?This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 03-Aug-2005 05:01 PM

quote:

---

The topic became too wide to handle....

---

I thought I was maintaining a decent focus on the topic. Sorry that you feel that my responses to you were ranging "too wide" from the topic.

"Breath taking" is pretty much an understatement for Darwin's theory.But what is your point? Darwin wrote two entire books, detailing in excruciating detail, the evidence that supported his theory.But I don't understand your point, or the analogy. Are you claiming that you have supported the thesis of your OP to the same degree as Darwin did, not to mention the findings of 150 years of continued scientific investigation?

I was just trying to understand your point, that's all; it wasn't all that clear from the post. (In fact, I still don't think I quite get it, but it's part of a conversation between you and deerbreh that I'm not really a part of.)