All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

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 4Preamble
Scientists 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 indoctrination
the 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.Theses1. 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 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 31-Jul-2005 07:51 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 31-Jul-2005 09:56 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 01-Aug-2005 10:18 PM

Thats a problem alright - but not with the proposition. 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. The MI presented has nothing in it which indicates that EI can be withstood by these defences. back to the OP. The above would read "real world data viewed through EI-tinted spectacles". (As an aside, the parallel with Christianity made above applies equally here too when you replace 'real world data' for 'real supernatural data' - again, not at all a compelling proof that Christianity isn't purely a result of indoctrination for many folk here) Which could have been a case of GI - operating in science then. Some may claim that science then isn't as developed as science now and they would be correct. However, the science then that we call 'primative' now, will be precisely be the description of science today 500 years from now. Back to the OP. How could science then, now and forever, demonstrate that indoctrination isn't contaminating it's science?By the way CP. Thanks for dealing with things w.r.t. the OP. I've scanned some later posts and you seem to be one of the few who has

A fuzziness exists regarding the definition of 'right and wrong' whenever an absolute standard against which actions can be measured is missing. A similar fuzziness for 'Scientific Method,(SM)' exists when no absolute, universally accepted definition of SM exists. The fact that SM has evolved and changed over time (witnessed perhaps by the liklyhood that todays SM definition is not the same as that of 300 years ago) and will continue to do so, means that SM is not absolute. SM depends on interpretation and (according to the OP) EI'd scientists will interpret through EI-tinted spectacles. I'll take your word for it. But before they got to the point of learning that, EI had plenty of time to suggest to folk that this theory was fact. You and I may know that theories (in theory) 'remain provisional forever'. The man in the street doesn't and is told that ToE is as sure a fact as that the world is round.OP modification proposal:
Lets use this point made above to modify the OP. Can we modify the OP to state that everybody in the world who believes Evolution to be true, but who does not have the tools to evaluate the data, believes it because of EI? Hardly. 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.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. Einsteins blunder is an excellent proof that even reaching these heady heights is no defence against an indoctrination (and given his genius, the indoctrination was probably self-inflicted!!) )Scientific Method Rules Okay? Not quite!

I said I wouldn't discuss off-topic or deal with personal testimony - so as to save time (it's Saturday and the hedge needs trimming!).Just this once...I can think of no method whereby a person cannot be indoctrinated. That's why I've posted this thread. That means obviously, I too can be. I believed blindly that Evolution was true, before I began to wonder about the effects of indoctrination. Now I believe that no one can say anything about it with any certainty. Indoctrination overules the science - unless a mechanism whereby indoctrination can be taken account of is discovered. Until such a mechanism is discovered and applied, then investigating evolution science is futile.Like, it's not that evolution science does anything actually ... useful. Unlike so many other areas of science. It's just the science-equivilent of history (not that I disparage history, which is of course useful - eg: Pythagorus' theorom ) I've never implied that scientists are incapable of critical thought. But now that you mention it, it occurs to me that 'critical' doesn't imply correct. I'm sure some critical thought went in to figuring out whether Zyklon B or firing squad was the best way to exterminate millions in the 1940's. You can critically think all you like - it says nothing about the correctness of the track your on.OP/EI/MI from now on, okay?

For anyone whose has somehow managed to conclude this from the OP or MI I've edited to expand a little on the MI.

My OP points out that the vast majority of folk in the world were exposed to EI. Being exposed to indoctrination is not the same thing as 'being indoctrinated'. My contention that all evolutionary-believing scientists believe because they have been EI'd. How or why some people are not EI'd is not the issue here (although an obvious way is the case where someone just doesn't give a hoot about science). The issue is how evolutionary-believing scientists can know or can show, that their science isn't filtered through EI-tinted glasses.This message has been edited by iano, 30-Jul-2005 05:09 PM

Merrian Webster on-line dictionary:Indoctrination:
2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle.Imbue:
1 : to permeate or influence as if by dyeing
2 : to tinge or dye deeplyEvidence of EI, Part 1:
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. Evidence of EI, part 2
Millions of people around the globe are permeated with the idea that evolution is true - whilst having absolutely no means by which to evaluate the claim. ImbuementQ.E.D.

It is somewhat shocking to witness how little reference to the OP there has been. Like, I thought the idea of debate was to deal with things like OP's and Mechanisms.(Edited by Ian. I take the above back. Just seen some posts come in which does deal with it. And at first glance some of it looks worrying for my stance. And that's the way I like best. But now the hedge!!)Hat's off to those who attempt to though. Anyway, I'm off to cut the hedge but given that there is so much off-topic, I'll take the liberty of some myself before I go.Professor Louis Bounoure, President of the Biologial Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum before becoming Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific research said (rather witheringly):"Evolutionism is a fairy-tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless"
(Cited in The Advocate, 8th March 1984. P.17)(although he didn't provide proof with it )Ernest Chain, co-holder of a 1945 Nobel Prize for his work in the use of penicillen...and acknowledged genius... said:"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely and intricate mass of fact and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically (you taking this in Ringo) and readily and for such a long time, by so many scientists, without a murmur of protest"
(Cited by Edward F. Block in; Special Creation vs Evolution, Southwest Bible Church, P.5)(Dunno if 'chance mutation' is still the main mechanism now, but the point is that this genius looked at a bunch of his fellow scientists - who were all presumably marching along to whichever version of the tune 'Scientific Method' was playing then - and thought to himself "This ain't science!")Yale University physical anthropologist David Philbeam openly admits:"I know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data is so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of actual data"
(David Pilbeam, Rearranging our family tree', in Human Nature, June 1978, P45.)(Hmmm..."Objectivity uber alles" it ain't)We'll leave the last word to Darwin in a letter to his fried Asa Gray when he said of his theory that;"[ones]Imagination must fill up the very wide blanks"
Zoologist, 16: (p.6299)(I couldn't agree more....)Good Saturday allThis message has been edited by iano, 30-Jul-2005 06:40 PM

I haven't thought through what you've said SL and if I do I'll be cutting the hedge in the dark. But I'll take your tone with me as a reminder of how it is a person can best present a view: calmly and rationally - without wisecrack or dig. I'm here to learn and that's the best lesson I've had all day....I must do better at that
I must do better at that
I must do better at that:0

Some of the language has gotten well aggravated which is a pity. Could we not take a peek at msg 48 from Sidelined again as an inspiration of how to voice a point without upsetting folk (I'm not saying I'm not guilty of riling folk myself but its best we try and stay friends. We might be eaten by the same worm someday and have no choice but to get on with each other). I'm going to try my very best not to be smart, cutting, rude etc myself anyway...I've edited post 1 to include:a definition of indoctrination (to clear that point up)
2 theses from discussion so far.The real issue I think is less to do with some kid watching dinosaur programmes and more to do with what happens in the scientific world - but I've had problems getting people to accept that EI occurs so must establish that before I can move on to what happens laters. See what you think of them.Ian

Read the thesis 1 and see what you think. I'm not saying that if you started EI-ing well educated folk you would get far. But the indoctrination didn't start when they were well educated. It started in the almost in the crib - as did earth around sun indocSee if you agree with thesis 2 as well. I agree with you that the data isn't infinitely malleable as you state. But it doesn't have to be to come up with dramatically different conclusions. Think of the effect of Einsteins constant to all the experts whose minds where boggled by his science. One little constant and you had Universe expanding vs Universe not expanding. Thesis 2 implies that a scientist can only hope to objectively evaluate the narrow area of data relevent to his field or an area where he is similarily expert. He cannot comment objectively on which way the data elsewhere was malleable-ated. He can only trust peer reviews by others.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-31-2005 02:20 PM

Good point. So I looked up in a dictionary and could see that objective and critical are different words. You can examine critically but unobjectively at the same time.

CK: See thesis 1 for evidence of EI

I'm not a scientist Brad so am unable to hold it together long enough to follow your train of thought. But what I gather is that you don't think your EI'd due to a critical evaluation of the evidence having immersed youself in gaining ability to evaluate objectively (but forgive me if I'm wrong). This would seem to agree with thesis 2Do you claim the position of the person in thesis 2 for one field of Evolution or more fields or what?You'll have to be clear with me though... I ain't that bright

Sorry to hear about the Ph.D CP. My dad spent 3 years on one when it transpired that an impossible task had been set. Wife and 3 kids at the time. Gutting for them both and not great Christmas presents for us kids for many a year. Stand back, relax, consider your position rationally and don't worry about your mom. I'm sure it's Chiroptera she loves not the letters in front or behind his name!Ian