All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

I asked you this question in the other thread and I'll ask it again:What makes you immune from the indoctrination? Why are you capable of critical thought but thousands of scientists are not?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

It's not an ad hominem attack. Did I word it badly?My point is: if the indoctrination is so universal, how did iano avoid it?This message has been edited by Ringo316, 2005-07-29 06:22 PM

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Allow me to refer you to the OP:

quote:

---

When they were just people, these folk heard about evolution.

---

quote:

---

Scientists who believe in evolution were indoctrinated to believe in evolution before they became scientists.

---

quote:

---

The mechanism starts at a very early age... 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....

---

It's pretty clear that he's talking about everybody, not a subset.As I see it, there are two fundamental flaws in iano's idea:1. He claims that everybody is indoctrinated, practically from birth.2. He claims that scientists are unable to overcome that indoctrination. (If your take on it is correct, they become even less capable.)Claim #1 is falsified by the fact that iano himself is not indoctrinated. If one is not indoctrinated, then why not ten? Why no hundreds? Why not thousands?Claim #2 has been discussed by Chiroptera.This message has been edited by Ringo316, 2005-07-29 06:48 PM

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

On the contrary. Read the OP:

quote:

---

... 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....

---

But, even if it is possible to break free, my question was: how do you break free? Been there. Done that. Never met one. Can you name a few hundred for us to contact? Done that. No sign of indoctrination.So, all that remains is for me to talk to all those ex-evolutionists that you talk about. Can you name a few hundred for us to contact?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I knew that.Virtually nobody who has looked at the evidence has turned away from evolution. The movement is entirely in the other direction, and I think you know that.The topic requires you and/or iano to show evidence that indoctrination occurs. I'm still waiting to see the evidence.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Where? What evidence? Link to it, repeat it, etc. No more bare assertions. Actually, it's your homework. You made the assertion. You back it up.I have made a very bold statement in denying your assertion. If I am wrong, you should be able to prove it.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Am I the only one who read the OP?

quote:

---

... it is impossible for such scientists to claim they can to be objective about evidence which they use to argue that evolution is true

---

If it is impossible for them to be objective, how does that not imply lack of critical thought? But Zyklon B was the best way to exterminate people. It was the extermination (politics) that was wrong, not the science. Don't confuse the application with the science itself.-------------But the bottom line here is that all you have is a bare assertion that "all scientists are indoctrinated". You have provided absolutely no evidence that your premise is true.This forum is called "Is it science?" Do you know what two of the most common hallmarks of pseudoscience are?1. They make up their own jargon. Creationists have "polystrate fossils" and "macroevolution". You have "EI" and "MI".2. They have no evidence to back up their conjectures.So, if you want to move out of the realm of pseudoscience, you'll need to provide some evidence that all scientists are indoctrinated.Let me help you get started on that:What do you suppose would constitute evidence that your premise is true? What observations from the real world would allow us to distinguish somebody who is indoctrinated from somebody who is not?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Conspiracy or no, you still need to provide evidence that the indoctrination exists.I could just as easily speculate that all creationists are possessed by demons, and propose a mechanism by which that possession took place.It isn't science unless you can provide evidence.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

On the contrary. I think it's the crux of the issue.You claim that scientists are indoctrinated to "believe" in evolution and that indoctrination prevents them from examining the evidence objectively. If some, or many, are immune to the indoctrination, then some, or many, can be objective. If some, or many, are objective, then your attack on evolution fails.Remember your OP:

quote:

---

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

---

Conversely, if your case doesn't hold together - i.e. if a significant number of scientists are not indoctrinated - we have no reason to doubt evolution.So, your mechanism needs to account for:1. Why some scientists may not be indoctrinated.2. What proportion of scientists are and are not indoctrinated.And you need to provide data that supports your mechanism.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

False. Therefore, doesn't qualify as evidence. "Some peoples' opinion" does not constitute evidence. So you say. But that is the question, not the answer. So you say. But that is the question, not the answer. Huh?I asked you for evidence, not a mathematical proof. And you gave me neither.Do you know what evidence is?Let's try again:How do you think we could look at a person objectively and decide whether or not he has been incoctrinated? What are the symptoms? What tests can we perform on him to determine the level of indoctrination?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

By the way, another characteristic of pseudoscience is the insistence that real science should prove them wrong.The onus is on you to prove yourself right.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Problem is, the "mechanism" is irrelevant unless you can establish that the phenomenon is real.I could just as easily propose a mechanism for the manufacture of green cheese on the moon:

quote:

---

Leprechauns climb up the rainbow... yada yada yada... and the blue of the atmosphere is subtracted from the green of the cheese, making the full moon appear yellow.

---

What's wrong with my mechanism?No evidence to back it up. No traces of lactose in them moon rocks. No green cheese, so no mechanism is needed.Just the same, you've provided no evidence to back up your hypothesis.So, show us some evidence that there is indoctrination. Then we'll evaluate the evidence and decide whether or not it supports your hypothesis. Then, if we decide that your hypothesis is valid, we'll look at your mechanism and see if it is plausible.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

The point here is to get at the truth of the matter. If the hypothesis dies, it dies. It doesn't matter what killed it.What do they call that now? Oh yeah. "Science". Read my lips: I have NOT experienced any such thing and neither have most of the contributors to this discussion.We are trying to discuss whether or not iano's premise is true. You are assuming from the get-go that it is. Stop it.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This is just more smoke and mirrors about how the supposed "process" works.You have not established yet that the phenomenon exists. Forget about "how" it works. Convince us that it does happen.Show us the evidence. All you've done so far is spout creationist propaganda.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

No. I was not. I was not taught evolution at all. That is the question, not the answer. What part of that do you not understand? Your empty assertions are getting very tiresome. If you have nothing of substance to say, please stop wasting everybody's time.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.