From: robd@cherry09.cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: world,local
Date: 25 Jan 93 14:06:23 CST

James J. Lippard (lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu) wrote:
: 
: They have, perhaps, been hiding things from the public in the sense
: that they don't make public statements about them (though you've
: cited some clear counterexamples), but not in the sense that there
: is some kind of organized conspiracy.  People in any profession don't
: like to emphasize the weak points in public--how much of mainstream
: biblical scholarship makes it from the seminary to the pulpit?
: (I'm not defending this practice; I think this is one of the useful
: aspects of creationism--to shine a light on perceived weaknesses
: in evolution, forcing scientists to either correct their misperceptions
: and educate the general public or to work harder at shoring up the
: actual weaknesses.)

Absolutely outstanding.  I was trying to say this, but this
guy beat me to it, and did it a lot better.

But since I already wrote it (and added a coupla things):

Phillip Johnson (philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
   [a bunch of stuff, relating to conspiracies and guilt
	by similiarity and such]

First of all, who knows why sci-guys say some of the things they
say.  But if they really were suppressing information in order
to force a scientific ideology, that would be one thing.  However, the
truth is that they are mostly just frail human beings who occasionally
get fixated on a particular idea.  They are individuals who have gotten
caught up in the world of personalities, politics, peer pressure, and
Nobel Prizes.  Yep, it happens.  But that is a far cry from an
organized ideological code of silence, a conspiratorial movement.
That kind of Darwin-ism is the realm of real politicians.  It is
foreign to the World of science

Second, 'tho you did not compare us to Nazi, Commies, Homo's, and all the
rest of the evils of the Universe -- but Marxists and Freudians?  That
may still be a little too strongly on the shock-value level of discourse.
Without a lot of supporting documentation, this position is nothing
more than intellectual bigotry.

But I'm fairly easy, and these were light problems.

: I recognize that this frank talk will cause offense.  My purpose
: is not to insult anyone, however, but to free minds.  Many of you
: have been indoctrinated not to question assumptions that are
: based on ideology rather than evidence.  You can be free of that
: indoctrination if you wish to be.

No you do not cause offense.  Unless tedium can be used insultingly.
I'm sorry, but you really don't seem to have much to say.  I will
say that I admire the very nice and reasonable way that you say it.
It is a refreshing change.  But it is relatively uncontaminated
with useful information.

Well, not entirely true.  You do point out something that all levels
of science, from the laboratory to the classroom, ought to be more
aware of, and that is the harmful effects that result from the
attempts to oversimplify, shoehorn, and pigeonhole ideas of great
complexity, and the tendency to minimize or dismiss the real
mysteries of the universe.  We have always looked to our wise
seers for all the answers, and now, as they have done thru the
ages, they have nodded sagely and said, "I understand."  Well, 
they often don't.  But they continue to talk and write as if they do,
and these cuff'd remarks, like bruises, often come back to remind
them that they ought not to spar in arenas outside of their knowledge.

Of course, I've also done it, and so have you, Phillip.
We humans really do have a lot in common.

: -- 
: Phillip E. Johnson
:   School of Law, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720

--

rob derrick				robd@cherry.cray.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc