Edited by iano to expand on the MI, enclosed by (e)
Edited by iano to include the definition of indoctrination to be used
Edited by iano to tidy up text - no change to meaning or argument
Edited by iano to include some theses based on discussion so far
Edited by iano to add some posts which support thesis 2
Edited by iano to add thesis 3 and correct typing errors
Edited by iano to add thesis 4
PreambleScientists 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!".
I'm not a scientist, but what I suspect, is that evolution-targetted science, like other science, is complex. Very often it is very complex. Many aspects of it: mutation of genes, body symmetry, the fossil record, survival of the fittest etc...is very complex. Maybe not when the 'science' is a toned-down version - as seen on t.v., or in the broad-brushstroked pages of books like 'The Blind Watchmaker. But when it comes to having to withstand the critique of peers, and is presented in the form of published papers, then it gets very complex indeed. 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 raises some questions:
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? If the answer is they couldn't then...
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? 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?
If the answer to the above is a resounding NO! then how does a scientist know, or even more difficultly, demonstrate this?
Opening Proposition: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.
The Mechanism of Indoctrination (MI):
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. The mechanism starts at a very early age, when there is little to prevent it exerting influence. 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. 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.
(e)The mechanism is not purposely directed by anyone. It is not for example a conspiracy by evil scientists who want to pull the wool over peoples eyes. There is no conscious thought behind the MI, which operates blindly and randomly. It is as blind and directionless as the process by which evolution is believed to march forward - so should be easy for many here to comprehend and believe. What litte man-made directing does exist, can be considered along the lines of the The Emperors New Clothes. That is, EI'd scientists propagating their EI-edness.(e)
The definition of indoctrinationthe definition to be used in this debate is the following from the Penguin English Dictionary:
1. to teach (a person or group) to accept a view, ideology etc uncritically, esp by systematic repetition.
Theses
1. 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 due to the fact that any qualification they may have up to that point is rejected as insufficient to permit them to comment on the invalidity (and thus too, validity) of evolution. This established by the following: msg 25 (wj), msg 26 (cavediver), msg 27 (charles knight), msg 48 (Sidelined). If anybody in still inclined to believe that EI doesn't occur throughout childhood, teenage and school years and into college then I would point them to the fact that 'everybody' believes the earth rotates around the Sun through a process of indoctrination (as defined above) and by the same mechanism as I propose for EI.
2. 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. A vast majority of paelantologists for example, have not the training or experience to evaluate the genetic argument of evolution for themselves. They may accept conclusions in published peer-reviewed papers but in doing so are placing faith in those who publish and criticise those papers. Faith however is not science. This thesis is self-supporting (although it is concurred with by msg 48 (Sidelined) and possibly others) msg 61,62,70,72 (CK) msg 113 (Rahvin)
3. Assuming thesis 2 can be established then the following can be added. The vast majority of scientists have expertise in a single field or a group of closely related fields (witnessed by educational qualifications etc). This means that they are surrounded by claims from numerous other fields, who say they've evidence that Evolution is true. A particular scientist has no way of evaluating these claims, except perhaps by exercising faith. The scientist is thus being EI'd, according to the definition of indoctrination presented above.
4. Scientific Method (SM) is an non-specific entity. Whilst it can broadly understood to provide a mechanism under which science is carried out, evaluated and tends toward self-correction, it cannot INFER UPON ITSELF the ability to defend,'in toto' and at all times against: error,deceit,favoritism, etc., ...or EI. The reasons I say this are (for now) twofold.
a) SM is not absolute. It has changed over time and will continue to change overtime. Things that are not absolute and consistant cannot be said to act in an absolute, consistant fashion.
b) There are many cases where SM has not been applied and personal ideology was allowed to affect the science. One example is sufficient to make the point (Einsteins Cosmological constant: a case of now you see it, now you don't). SM may ensure correction soon... or it may not.
Hence, if someone is to claim SM as having defended against EI (as opposed to exhibiting a general 'tendency' towards defence), then the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate, specifically how this has been achieved. That SM may tend to counter effects of EI at some point, says nothing about the situation now or previously. And now is where the OP is making it's claim and now is when SM, if used as a defence against EI, needs to be shown to be such.
This message has been edited by iano, 30-Jul-2005 04:52 PM
This message has been edited by iano, 31-Jul-2005 07:51 PM
This message has been edited by iano, 31-Jul-2005 09:56 PM
This message has been edited by iano, 01-Aug-2005 10:18 PM
™ Version 4.2