Definition of Indoctrination from wikipedia.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

I've observed this behavior to be valid. Especially with evolutionary scientists.

How so?

consistency wrote:Definition of Indoctrination from wikipedia.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

I've observed this behavior to be valid. Especially with evolutionary scientists.

No, because central to the scientific method is the premise 'do not accept this answer without checking it'.

Game over for your sophomoric, at best, apologetics.

hackenslash wrote:

No, because central to the scientific method is the premise 'do not accept this answer without checking it'.

What do you mean by "checking it"?

Does this assertion comply with available evidence? Is it contradicted by it? Is the reasoning employed in the arrival at this conclusion valid? Sound? Does it lead to any predictions by which it might be tested?

I mean checking it.

No. Science is a method.

Short version:

Step 1: See something.
Step 2: Think of a possible explanation.
Step 3: Try to figure out if that explanation is correct.

That is, assuming that you meant to ask if science is an indoctrination. The word "science" is not a proper name so should not be capitalized and I don't know why you put it in quotes.

consistency wrote:Definition of Indoctrination from wikipedia.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

I've observed this behavior to be valid. Especially with evolutionary scientists.

Bullshit, you have not observed it because EVERYTHING in science is subject to revision and critical examination.

What you actually might see is that virtually all of the relevant science supports evolution...because it does. There is not a valid alternative, not because critical examination is discouraged, but because there is literally NO evidence supporting any other possible explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

consistency wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

No, because central to the scientific method is the premise 'do not accept this answer without checking it'.

What do you mean by "checking it"?

Really? We have to explain to you what it means to check an answer?

Critically examine the possible answer to try to determine if it is most likely to be correct..

Along with your other post entitled "Is evolutionary theory false?" This is just cheap journalistic framing, Consistency. You're simply twinning the idea of indoctrination with your own misapprehension of what science is in the vain hope that we don't know better.

Scientific paradigms shift all of the time, Consistency. We've seen that in the revolutionary changes to our conception of modern physics and our understanding of genetics in the last 50 years or so. Both have forced us to reconsider our understandings of the world and to adapt what we previously thought unassailable. It's not difficult to challenge even the most closely guarded scientific principles, as long as you can demonstrate it through rigorous scientific investigation.

Unfortunately, those that complain that their pet theologies aren't accepted into the scientific consensus are not taken seriously because, rather than actually trying to synthesise a sound, rigorous and scientifically accurate mechanism for their design hypothesis they claim that scientists are simply too obstinate. Like you have; Mistaking indoctrination for scientific rigour.

consistency wrote:Definition of Indoctrination from wikipedia.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

I've observed this behavior to be valid. Especially with evolutionary scientists.

Bullshit. Do you have anything other to offer here than troll posts?

consistency wrote:Definition of Indoctrination from wikipedia.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

I've observed this behavior to be valid. Especially with evolutionary scientists.

Funny I have only ever observed indoctrination in respect of religious belief.

Any practicing investigative scientist does their work in the hope of overturning (falsifying) the current paradigm with an expenses paid visit to Stockholm to follow sometime later.

ramseyoptom wrote:

consistency wrote:Definition of Indoctrination from wikipedia.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

I've observed this behavior to be valid. Especially with evolutionary scientists.

Funny I have only ever observed indoctrination in respect of religious belief.

Any practicing investigative scientist does their work in the hope of overturning (falsifying) the current paradigm with an expenses paid visit to Stockholm to follow sometime later.

I think religious people are already in Stockholm given their condition.

Animavore wrote:

ramseyoptom wrote:

consistency wrote:Definition of Indoctrination from wikipedia.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

I've observed this behavior to be valid. Especially with evolutionary scientists.

Funny I have only ever observed indoctrination in respect of religious belief.

Any practicing investigative scientist does their work in the hope of overturning (falsifying) the current paradigm with an expenses paid visit to Stockholm to follow sometime later.

I think religious people are already in Stockholm given their condition.

consistency wrote:Definition of Indoctrination from wikipedia.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

I've observed this behavior to be valid. Especially with evolutionary scientists.

How about you troll some other place?

Calilasseia wrote:

consistency wrote:Definition of Indoctrination from wikipedia.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

I've observed this behavior to be valid. Especially with evolutionary scientists.

Bullshit. Do you have anything other to offer here than troll posts?

Hey! I was going to say that. You stole my response!

I love the way religious people try to drag science down to the level of religion and then ridicule it on that basis. Always far easier to ridicule silly religious beliefs than established facts, as evidenced by the superfluousness of riotous jokes about religion and the ease of which it becomes material for stand-up comedians.

consistency wrote:Definition of Indoctrination from wikipedia.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

I've observed this behavior to be valid. Especially with evolutionary scientists.

Science is about anything but indoctrination and lack of critical examination. It is rather the opposite. It is about facts and evidence. Sorry that those facts and evidence are not supporting your preferred beliefs.

Bribase wrote:Along with your other post entitled "Is evolutionary theory false?" This is just cheap journalistic framing, Consistency. You're simply twinning the idea of indoctrination with your own misapprehension of what science is in the vain hope that we don't know better.

Scientific paradigms shift all of the time, Consistency. We've seen that in the revolutionary changes to our conception of modern physics and our understanding of genetics in the last 50 years or so. Both have forced us to reconsider our understandings of the world and to adapt what we previously thought unassailable. It's not difficult to challenge even the most closely guarded scientific principles, as long as you can demonstrate it through rigorous scientific investigation.

Unfortunately, those that complain that their pet theologies aren't accepted into the scientific consensus are not taken seriously because, rather than actually trying to synthesise a sound, rigorous and scientifically accurate mechanism for their design hypothesis they claim that scientists are simply too obstinate. Like you have; Mistaking indoctrination for scientific rigour.

Not at all. I am not against science because science did me wrong. The mindset of the scientific community is wrong. Hence why I strongly believe it is an indoctrination.

I've made a couple of very big world changing discoveries that I will eventually test officially and publish when I get back to Canada. I've made these discoveries BECAUSE scientists have overlooked the results of their studies and they overlooked the results of their studies BECAUSE of their preconceived false beliefs.

In all honesty, there is a lot of made up shit in the scientific community and a lot valid science BUT the made up shit is what ruins the good science. When most scientists accept all the science as valid because they expect everyone to follow the scientific method, it isn't science anymore but a game of telephone where the made up shit is passed around as valid science.

OMG! The hubris and delusion are strong in this one.

consistency wrote:I've made a couple of very big world changing discoveries that I will eventually test officially and publish when I get back to Canada. I've made these discoveries BECAUSE scientists have overlooked the results of their studies and they overlooked the results of their studies BECAUSE of their preconceived false beliefs.

Fucking brill. I can't wait. You'll announce them first here, I expect!

Animavore wrote:OMG! The hubris and delusion are strong in this one.

Animavore Belief: I am the best of all possible beings.

Hypocrite?