|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
The problem with the the proposition that the acceptance of evolution by scientists is the result of some sort of indoctrination is that it requires believing that thousands of people in a variety of different cultural mileau having a variety of different educational experiences, and many with very little actual exposure to evolutionary thought along the way, can all be so indoctrinated that they simply accept the theory of evolution even though they are working with real world data.
It doesn't appear to be possible. If this is the case, then there seems to be something unique about the theory of evolution. Consider a couple of historical examples. Over 500 years ago, it was common knowledge that the stars and planets went around a stationary earth. In fact, the concept of a moving earth was almost inconcievable. Yet despite this constant immersion in "geocentrism" indoctrination, a heliocentric model was proposed, and once it was shown that this model accounts for the data better than the older one, it was accepted. Over 300 years ago it was believed by Europeans that the earth was only about 6000 years old, and that there was a global flood roughly 4000 years ago. This was widely taught at home, in the churches, and at the educational institutions (especially since at this time the majority of educational institutions were run by religious orders). Yet when the early geologists, predisposed to believe in a global flood, and ready to find evidence in support of the flood, investigated the world, not only did they not find the evidence they were looking for, but the evidence was compelling enough to lead them into believing the earth is at least several tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of years old. The entire history of science is filled with examples like this, the abandonment of Newtonian mechanics (twice! quantum mechanics and relativity theory) being yet another important example. The history of western scientific advance shows that indoctrination is insufficient to prevent large numbers of people, examining actual data, from recognizing when the old theories are insufficient, proposing new ones, and then testing the new theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I wouldn't be so sure of that. This has all the hallmarks of classic conspiracy theory -- where the arguments against indoctrination will be turned around to show just how effective the indoctrination really is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Yep, right on schedule. Indoctrination cannot be disproven because any evidence against indoctrination is itself part of the indoctrination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I didn't notice his wording before:
... it is impossible for them to demonstrate that they aren't wearing evolution-tinted spectacles every time they weigh up evidence. Wow! He even admits that he is setting us up for an impossible task! Once the accusation of indoctrination is made, it will be impossible to prove it otherwise, since any evidence to the contrary will be considered part of the indoctrination!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
iano,
quote: That isn't analogous to what you are claiming with respect to evolution. What would be analogous, if I am reading the OP correctly, would be, "the constant exposure of people to Christian messages indoctrinates them into Christian thinking, and so Christians view the evidence through Christian-tainted lenses." If the claim was that the huge mass of Christians were hopelessly indoctrinated into Christian theology so that they would be unable to look at data objectively and reach conclusions contrary to their theology, then that claim, too, would be incorrect. -
quote: First things first; if I am reading the OP correctly, you are claiming that the exposure to the concept of evolution is an effective means to indoctrinate a large number of well educated people against an objective evaluation of real life data. That has not yet been demonstrated. It is premature to talk about whether indoctrination can be withstood by some defenses until it is established that there is something to be defended against. You have not yet demonstrated that these "evolutionary messages" are as pervasive in the environment of the greatest number of biological scientists as you claim, nor that the exposure to these messages are sufficient to cause the kind of indoctrination you are claiming. -
quote: Data is data. Facts are not infinitely malleable. Either the data is consistent with a scientific theory, or it is not. Some creationists insist that "it is all a matter of interpretation" -- what they either don't realize, or hope that their audience doesn't realize, is that what they are implying is not just a matter of "interpretation" -- they are talking about stretching facts to an incredible degree and incredible logical contortions. That, too, needs to be demonstrated before it can simply be accepted. -
quote: It is not yet the problem of science to demonstrate that it isn't being contaminated by indoctrination -- it is up to those making the claim of indoctrination to demonstrate that this contamination exists. In fact, the issue isn't "contamination" -- the issue is whether scientists are, by and large, able to overcome their predisposed assumptions to reach contrary conclusions when examining real life data. Again, before science can be required to defend itself from these charges, the charges must be shown to have some credibility. I have brought up several historical examples where scientists were able to overcome their predispositions to reach entirely new and profound conclusions. You claim that currently science is different -- that it is, but you have neither specifically mentioned which differences are relevant, nor that those differences can result in the kind of indoctrination which you are claiming. There is a whole body of psychological research on the question of indoctrination and "brainwashing". There is no evidence that indicates that it is even possible to indoctrinate so many people in such varied circumstances so they are incapable of objectivity; certainly not through the type of exposure to the theory of evolution that currently exists in our culture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Tell me about debacles! I am now winding down another failed attempt at a PhD. (Sigh) My mother will never be able to say her eldest son is a "doctor".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: So now we see what the real issue is. Since this is a response to Ringo, he gets credit for smokin' 'im out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hello, sidelined.
I was thinking about this very point myself. I was planning on replying to it, but I was waiting to see how the points we were exchanging were going to turn out first. You have made essentially the same points that were occurring to me. I would add that the layperson does, usually, have a choice of how much work to put into verifying the claims of a scientific community, depending on how deeply she wants to become involved. There are facts and data that are either undisputed even by the anti-evolution crowd, or are easily verified. There are some facts that may require a little effort to verify -- for example, actually driving into a forest and looking at how animals behave. And there are facts that would be incredibly difficult to verify -- like going to a museum that houses one of the six specimens of Archaeopteryx and examining it closely (provided that you are allowed to get close to it!). The interpretation of the data can also be scaled according to the degree of training required to see the conclusions. Some conclusions are immediately obvious; some would require reading a couple of popular science articles in order to find out what one is looking for in the data; and some conclusions can be arrived at only after extensive training teaches you how to use the equipment properly, how to make the measurements, and so forth. Evolution is much more amenable than, say, high energy particle physics in that there is plenty of data that is either universally accepted or easily observed, and the interpretations are fairly obvious. If a person wants to read a few non-technical books, and go into a forest or nearby natural history museum, more data is available. Finally, if the person is intrigued enough, she can certainly take part in more extensive training and take part in more strenuous research activities. So, when the question comes up as to how we, the untrained, can verify the claims of scientists, an interested person can start out pretty simply without leaving her home computer. As you say, if the person is more interested, she can progressively increase her efforts to examine more data directly and to understand how the data is collected and measured. The only limit to her ability to verify the evolutionary scientists' claims is determined by her interest and the amount of resources she is willing to commit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, what would be interesting would be a study that shows that being told "evolution is true" a bunch of times produces an inability to examine data objectively. That is what is at issue here. -
quote: Why don't you grow up, you arrogant little shit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Quite a few Americans live in Ketchikan, Alaska. I can even name a bunch of them. But what does this have to do with the demographics of the United States?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Boy, are you in for a shock!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Not meaning any offense, guys, but do you need to be going on about this in two threads?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
The topic of this thread is whether or not evolutionary scientists have been too indoctrinated to be objective in their examination of data. It might be more relevant to discuss what evolutionary scientists deal with evidence; the behavior of scientists who reject evolution is relevant, at best, only as a comparison.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I understand. I'm usually not such a stickler for staying on-topic, but, to be truthful, I don't see much value in the exchange between you and randman, and I still have some hope that the main topic of this thread might become interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I fear that you may be right. I agree that this is similar to ID or CPT.
Basically, the argument appears to be: I want the world to be a certain way.The facts indicate that the world is not the way I want it to be. So, I must either accept that the world is not as I would wish, or I must find a way to convince myself that all of the scientists are wrong. Like the IDists and CPTites, the OP seems to be committed to the second choice. However, I still think that the questions in the OP could lead to an interesting conversation, if iano is sincerely interesting in discussing the question. At worst, it is always interesting to see what logical contortions people are willing to suffer in order to maintain the painted backdrop that they identify with the real world.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024