Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 312 (227577)
07-29-2005 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
07-29-2005 6:29 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 07-29-2005 6:29 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by iano, posted 07-30-2005 9:46 AM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 270 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 11:27 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 312 (227598)
07-29-2005 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rahvin
07-29-2005 8:10 PM


Re: What's so special about you?
quote:
His proposal can easily be demolished without them.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rahvin, posted 07-29-2005 8:10 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 07-29-2005 8:25 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 312 (227624)
07-29-2005 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by randman
07-29-2005 9:22 PM


How do you tell which side is indoctrinated?
quote:
Imo, a useful exercise for evolutionists would be to...do some self-examination to see if they are influenced by indoctrination.
Yep, right on schedule. Indoctrination cannot be disproven because any evidence against indoctrination is itself part of the indoctrination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 9:22 PM randman has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 312 (227627)
07-29-2005 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ringo
07-29-2005 9:50 PM


He admits this is a conspiracy theory!
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ringo, posted 07-29-2005 9:50 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Brad McFall, posted 07-30-2005 12:25 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 312 (227760)
07-30-2005 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by iano
07-30-2005 9:46 AM


evidence is important
iano,
quote:
Some here could replace the word Evolution with the word Christianity and have no problem at all with the following point, to whit: numbers of people, culture and extent of exposure are not defences against an indoctrintation, if the indoctrination is able to cross those boundaries.
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:
The MI presented has nothing in it which indicates that EI can be withstood by these defences.
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:
The above would read "real world data viewed through EI-tinted spectacles".
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:
How could science then, now and forever, demonstrate that indoctrination isn't contaminating it's science?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by iano, posted 07-30-2005 9:46 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 3:01 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 121 by iano, posted 07-31-2005 3:18 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 312 (227798)
07-30-2005 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Brad McFall
07-30-2005 12:25 PM


Re: He admits this is a conspiracy theory!
quote:
In the 80s after the debacle at Cornell....
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Brad McFall, posted 07-30-2005 12:25 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by iano, posted 07-31-2005 3:35 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 312 (227799)
07-30-2005 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by iano
07-30-2005 12:27 PM


Aha!
quote:
Evolution is a partisan/sectarian theory. Up until the time of Darwin, Science held that the world was created by an ordered, logical being (God). Evolution posed a mechanism whereby God could be dispensed with. Some would say that Evolution is the partisan/sectarian Gospel according to Darwin and Co.
So now we see what the real issue is. Since this is a response to Ringo, he gets credit for smokin' 'im out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by iano, posted 07-30-2005 12:27 PM iano has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 312 (227834)
07-30-2005 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by sidelined
07-30-2005 1:33 PM


The layman's inspection of science.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by sidelined, posted 07-30-2005 1:33 PM sidelined has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 312 (227845)
07-30-2005 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by randman
07-30-2005 3:01 PM


Re: evidence is important
quote:
Maybe there is somewhere a study that details on average how many times the average American is told evolution is true. That would be interesting....
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:
That's a bogus argument and you know it.
Why don't you grow up, you arrogant little shit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 3:01 PM randman has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 312 (227869)
07-30-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ringo
07-30-2005 4:01 PM


Re: Papers
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 07-30-2005 4:01 PM ringo has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 312 (227875)
07-30-2005 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Modulous
07-30-2005 4:05 PM


Re: indoctrination of a nation, subjugation of damnation
quote:
I...haven't had time to keep an eye on how the thread has developed....
Boy, are you in for a shock!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 07-30-2005 4:05 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Modulous, posted 07-30-2005 5:30 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 312 (227902)
07-30-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by CK
07-30-2005 4:50 PM


Not meaning any offense, guys, but do you need to be going on about this in two threads?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by CK, posted 07-30-2005 4:50 PM CK has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 312 (227958)
07-30-2005 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by ringo
07-30-2005 6:24 PM


A reminder about topic.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ringo, posted 07-30-2005 6:24 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by ringo, posted 07-31-2005 1:07 AM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 312 (228077)
07-31-2005 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by ringo
07-31-2005 1:07 AM


Re: A reminder about topic.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ringo, posted 07-31-2005 1:07 AM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by jar, posted 07-31-2005 11:38 AM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 312 (228104)
07-31-2005 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by jar
07-31-2005 11:38 AM


Re: Toss out a proposal
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by jar, posted 07-31-2005 11:38 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by jar, posted 07-31-2005 12:00 PM Chiroptera has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024