Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 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
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 181 of 312 (228626)
08-01-2005 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by iano
08-01-2005 4:46 PM


Re: indoctrination of a nation, subjugation of damnation
iano writes:
Why someone doesn't believe Evolution despite exposure to EI is beyond the scope of this debate. I only hold that all evo's believe as a result of EI.
EII (Evolution Indoctrination Indoctrination) is more likely, as the evidence that would be inconsistent with EI is easily recognizable as not being in line with EI, and therefore can be rejected before it corrupts the data pool. Contrast to EI, wherein evidence many times removed from anything in Evolutionary Theory would have to be instantly recognized as being inconsistent with the ToE for it to be rejected before it corrupts the data pool.
Here: According to EI, before it is accepted that iron rusts, and the method by which it rusts, this must first be run through a test to see if it either conforms to the ToE, or doesn't pertain to it at all on any level. If it does pertain to the ToE on some level, but is inconsistent with it; then, according to EI, it must be rejected so that such invalidating data doesn't enter the pool. Now, as iron rusting is basic chemistry, which is the foundation of biology, which is rather entangled with the ToE; both the fact that iron rusts and the process by which it rusts are probably connected to the ToE on some level. So, EI requires that everyone who accepts both the ToE and iron rusting has subconsciously examined every consequence of the latter, and determined that said consequences are either in line with the ToE, or don't impact it at all; as both the theory of rusting and the observation of rust have been accepted. Now, as a mere human could never know that he has examined all possible avenues from something this far removed, EI requires that scientists be gods for it to work.
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-01-2005 10:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 4:46 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 10:03 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 184 of 312 (228655)
08-02-2005 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
07-29-2005 6:29 PM


Now let's have fun with your original post.
iano writes:
Scientists who believe in evolution are people.
Therefore, as the prerequisite of EI hasn't been met (scientists=gods), EI is false.
iano writes:
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?
Well, as I am not versed in the intricacies of computer processor design, how can I be sure that the theories that Intel used in designing the PIII chip work? Hmmm... the fact that my computer works is pretty good evidence of this, and I think I'm qualified to make the determination, "My computer works."
iano writes:
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?
If you've dropped the false premise, it cannot be the same reason.
Here:
1. Mommy and Daddy told me that the Earth is a sphere.
2. Mommy and Daddy are always right. (default belief for a child)
3. Therefore, the Earth is a sphere.
Usually, sometime right after Santagate, children recognize that (2) is false. Thus, (3) is recognized to be unsupported -- it's floating. If it is not supported by other means, it will eventually collapse. As (3) can be supported by the evidence, there is a really good replacement for (2) available. Once you've replaced (2) with the evidence, you're no longer using (2).
And now for a tangent:
1. Mommy and Daddy told me that the Bible is right.
2. Mommy and Daddy are always right. (default belief for a child)
3. Therefore, the Bible is right.
Once (2) is recognized to be false, (3) will eventually collapse without support. Of course:
4. The Bible says that the Bible is right.
5. As (3,4); (3).
...it just happens to be self-supporting. You only need (2) for that initial leg-up. After that the circular argument is the only support it needs. Even though it's not good support, it's still different than supporting it with (2), so the reason for belief has changed.
iano writes:
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?
As I touched on in my previous post, science is simply too complex and interconnected for this to be the case. It also isn't in line with the sheer amount of evidence consistent with the ToE.
Here: You're now my prime suspect in the murder of JFK. You shot him -- I know you did. Nothing is gonna convince me otherwise. Now I'm gonna present the evidence that's consistent with my theory:
1. Guns and bullets exist, so you could've had them.
2. You have hands, so you could've held the gun.
3. You have eyes, so you could've aimed the gun.
4. You have fingers, so you could've fired the gun.
5. You have legs, so you could've gotten to Dallas.
See? It all adds up!
iano writes:
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.
That's a form of argumentum ad logicam; ie, the method used is invalid, therefore the conclusion is false.
1. My lawn is green.
2. My lawn is wet. (it rained)
3. My towel is green.
4. Therefore, my towel is also wet.
Completely invalid, but that doesn't mean that (4) is false. I just took a shower, so my towel is wet.
Anyway, what your proposition boils down to is, "If you were taught something, and you still believe it, it is false." Pretty silly, if you ask me.
iano writes:
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.
Why don't you work on something more pervasive, like tSiBI? I mean, our kids are continually being told that the sky is blue, which results in them looking at the sky through blue-tinted spectacles. And OMG, the French need some serious help! I mean, "Le ciel est bleu?" We should send in the Marines to put a stop to that nonsense!!
iano writes:
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.
At least dogs don't have to worry about tSiBI coloring their perceptions.
iano writes:
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.
I've heard that some Christians even go so far as to deny the existence of the firmament! I mean, it's obvious that the athesist evilutionist scientists simply refuse to accept that all our spacecraft keep smashing into it. Even on the 2 instances where the Truth burned through their spectacles -- where they couldn't deny that the space shuttle came back to Earth in pieces -- they explained it away with 'O-ring failure' and 'tile damage'. Will their lies never cease???

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 194 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 7:12 AM DominionSeraph has not replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 190 of 312 (228685)
08-02-2005 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by iano
07-30-2005 11:00 AM


Re: Scientific Method
iano writes:
You imply that whilst the person may have been indoctrinated up to this point the spectacles are somehow removed and they can see more or less clearly. But you don't include a mechanism by which the EI is magically removed. Well you do. The mechanism is a non-absolute, EI-interpreted SM. I reckon that some branches of science are less exposed to indoctrination that others, so the SM can be better interpreted and applied. My OP however, suggests that EI is so widespread and so total, that the science itself must be binned. It will never be able to haul itself out of the cauldron of indoctrination. A victim of it's own success if you will.
Those pesky Creationists throw a monkey wrench into the works, though. They have no compuction over using the Bifurcation and argumentum ad ignorantiam logical fallacies; ie, "Either Evolution or Creationism. If Evolution is not proved true, it is false; and therefore Creationism is true." As they consider anything that doesn't support the ToE as support for their position, they're in a perfect position to see anything that the EI'ed would be leaving out, as that's exactly what they're looking, hoping, and praying for. However, all their looking has turned up nothing. If evolution-tinted spectacles cause people to find evidence of evolution in and under every rock, why don't anti-evolution-tinted spectacles find disproof of evolution in and under those same rocks?
The methods that Creationists use is either a tacit admission that they cannot cut science off at the knees by demonstrating biased evidence-gathering, or evidence that Creationists are even dumber than they appear, as they have missed such an exceedingly obvious opportunity.
iano writes:
Don't forget that scientists are people first, scientists second. Whilst philisophically SM may be about demolishing hypothesis if one can, back in the real world, it can often fall very short of the ideal. The Einstein you referred to above was the same one who inserted a 'cosmological constant' in his general theory of relativity, such was his distaste for the obvious implication - the Universe had a beginning. He removed it later, after meeting Hubble and Lamaitre at Mount Wilson Observatory and seeing for himself that the Universe, it appeared, was indeed expanding. He confessed that adding the constant was "the biggest blunder of my life".
(Before folk leap in and use this as an example of Sciences tendency towards self-correction, note Einsteins initial motivation for the constant. He didn't like what his science was telling him and adapted the science so that it would tell what he wanted to hear.
No, Einstein didn't like what the math was telling him. So, he added the constant, and thus had a new hypothesis. It was tested, and falsified.
Here:
A train leaves Station A and, 1 hour later, arrives at Station C, which is 100 miles distant. How fast is the train going at midpoint B?
Now, the average speed is 100mph, but that doesn't mean that I have to have it traveling 100mph at point B. How's this:
The train travels at 81.37mph until the 40.68 mile mark. Then it instantly accelerates to light speed for 0.0001 seconds, covering a distance of 18.62 miles, and then instantly decelerates back to 81.37mph for the remainder of the journey.
How fast is the train going at midpoint B? 186,282 miles per second.
My math works out fine, and now I'm hypothesizing that the train is moving @ c @ point B. Pretty cool, eh? So, am I now a 1337 scientist? Heck no! I haven't done anything but plug numbers into Microsoft Calculator. The science comes when I sit my ass down at point B and clock the train.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by iano, posted 07-30-2005 11:00 AM iano has not replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 251 of 312 (228961)
08-02-2005 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by iano
08-02-2005 12:53 PM


Re: Dis, Dat, Thesis and Doze
iano writes:
I cannot demonstrate critically and objectively why I believe + yet I believe nonetheless = EI
iano writes:
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.
So, EI makes it impossible to be objective, and (not objective) + (belief) = EI. Dude, that's circular.
p1. If EI; (not objective)
p2. EI
c1. Therefore; (not objective).
p3. (Belief) + (not objective)= EI
p4. Belief
p5. Not objective (c1)
c2. Therefore; EI.
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-02-2005 07:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 12:53 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by iano, posted 08-03-2005 6:07 AM DominionSeraph has replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 256 of 312 (229043)
08-03-2005 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by randman
08-03-2005 1:38 AM


Re: indoctrination has characteristics
randman writes:
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.
Only a moron could've come up with, "The ToE violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics," from an honest review of the pertinent facts. So, it's better if Creationists are dishonest, as that at least allows for the possibility that they're not all complete idiots.
randman writes:
No, groups that indoctrinate people make their critics out to be evil in one form or another, not sincere.
That's what evolutionists do, as evidenced on this thread.
So, in your experience, nerds are some pretty slick operators? Hmmm... I guess you're right. I forgot that our last 10 presidents were all physicists; all elected in landslides due to their undeniably 1337 skillz at character assassination.
randman writes:
Another form of propaganda is the use of false logic. For example, the term evolution can mean any change basically, micro-evolution, or ToE which is universal common descent. Let's call the first A, and ToE, B.
"A" is an important concept, valuable in many fields, and is not contested.
"A" is observed.
Evolutionists then claim because "evolution" equals A, B must be true as well.
That's a pretty common assertion made by Creationists, but I've never seen it actually occur. Please provide a link to a post in which an 'evolutionist' actually claimed such a thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 1:38 AM randman has not replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 259 of 312 (229076)
08-03-2005 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by iano
08-03-2005 6:07 AM


Re: Dis, Dat, Thesis and Doze
iano writes:
I question your logic on the basis that p1 has an 'if' statement which doesn't appear nor is implied in the text "I cannot demonstrate...."
It came from your opening proposition, which I also quoted.
"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."
Now, ignoring the literal meaning of the second sentence (it's quite funny as stated), I read it to mean, "Because of (EI), it is impossible for scientists to be objective." Thus; if (EI), (not objective).
iano writes:
For want of another explanation (and science presumes an explantion is possible for observable phenomenon) EI best-fits the thesis
Only if you disallow any disproof other than 'nonbelief'; which your current logical structure doesn't allow. What you're using is:
____________
  |   _____    |
 a|--|     \   |
     | AND  )--|f
 b---|_____/
Wherein (b) is 'belief', and (f/a) is 'not objective/EI'. You presuppose that (f/a) is high, so as long as (b) remains high, (f/a) will too. The only way for it to possibly go low -- to allow for 'objective/not EI', is for (b) to go low, ie, nonbelief.
Now, EI fitting is no surprise -- you presuppose it, and fricken' have it shorted to the output!.
It might even be worse:
____________
   |   _____    |
  a|--|     \   |
      | AND  )--|f
b--|--|_____/   |
   |            |
   |----VVV-----|
Presuppose (f) is high, therefore (a) and (b) are high, therfore (f) is high.
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-03-2005 07:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by iano, posted 08-03-2005 6:07 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by iano, posted 08-03-2005 7:51 AM DominionSeraph has replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 272 of 312 (229172)
08-03-2005 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by iano
08-03-2005 7:51 AM


Re: Dis, Dat, Thesis and Doze
iano writes:
I would have imagined that it would be obvious that the area to apply the logic is not the proposal which is just a claim, but the arguments that back up the proposal.
No, as knocking out the support doesn't disprove the claim. All it does is demonstrate that a belief that the claim is true is unwarranted, which leaves the rational person at unbelief until something else comes along which justifies either belief or disbelief.
Anyway, your argument supporting the claim was circular, so as the claim was included in its own support, there was no way to avoid including it.
iano writes:
Proposal "Life came from none life" Why? "because it did" would indeed be circular reasoning.
Nope. That's simply an example of asking the wrong question, followed by a non-answer.
iano writes:
So, my last post to you DS, which is part of the logical evidence for the OP. Can you argue against it logically?
If you're asking if I can support the claim that the circuit wouldn't work, I can't. Of course, I don't make that claim, so I don't have to support it. The circuit would work just fine. I just disagree that that circuit is an accurate model of reality. I mean, you can label (a), (b), and (f) with anything you'd like, and it would still work. Electronics is electronics -- it doesn't care how you label the inputs and outputs.
Now, in order for you to see for yourself that it's not an accurate model, you're gonna have to try using the same circuit for analogous situations, and see if it works in those. You seem to be avoiding this like the plague. Are you scared of what you might find?
iano writes:
(P.S. for those who want an actual example of circular reasoning as opposed to DS's previous effort, you couldn't do much better than this one from the Roman Catholic church)
Q: "How do you know the Bible is the inerrant word of God" "
A: "Because we say it is the inerrant word of God"
Q: "Who gives you the authority to make such a claim"
A: "The Bible says we have authority to make such a claim"
That's not even an argument.
Here:
1. The Bible is right.
2. The Bible says it's right.
3. As the Bible is right, it is right when it says it's right.
4. Therefore, the Bible is right.
(4) is the same as (1) -- that's circular.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by iano, posted 08-03-2005 7:51 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by iano, posted 08-03-2005 3:23 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 274 of 312 (229183)
08-03-2005 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by deerbreh
08-03-2005 11:01 AM


Re: Dis, Dat, Thesis and Doze
deerbreh writes:
All orbiting bodies less than 4000 km in diameter are made of green cheese.
The moon has a diameter of 3476 km and orbits the earth.
Therefore the moon is made of green cheese.
Ok the logic is flawless but the premise is false so the conclusion is hogwash as well.
Depends on what you mean by 'hogwash'. If you mean 'false', that's the argumentum ad logicam logical fallacy. If you mean 'worthless', you're right on; since a false premise and/or an invalid inference leave the conclusion at an indeterminate truth value. (As you use a false premise, it cannot be determined from your argument whether the moon is made of green cheese or not. We can, however, use other methods to determine whether it's true -- like observation.)
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-03-2005 12:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 11:01 AM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 1:55 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024