Have you ever been mistaken? Have you ever been told something that later you discovered wasn't true? How do you know that what you think now about something is correct, and not just another misconception? I have been wrong in the past, am likely misled or mistaken now about some things, and will no doubt be wrong in the future. There are many levels and factors that shape our world view and perceptions about reality. Some of them are benign or inconsequential, while others are critical parts of our world view. Most of these overlap, and blend together to form our belief system. 1. Incomplete information. We arrive at a conclusion, but it is based on partial knowledge. We either fill in the gaps of our data with assumptions, or we dismiss the importance of sometimes very critical building blocks in our knowledge base. 2. Partial truth. Sometimes a nugget of truth is extrapolated to a flawed conclusion. A false equivalency or other faulty process is used to blend truth, assumptions, and lies to a plausible, but mistaken, conclusion. 3. Flawed assumptions. We have a smattering of facts, but they are processed through assumptions we make. The resultant conclusion might be logical, but it is based on unproven assumptions. 4. True facts. Most of our knowledge base is based on true facts. Most of what we learn is true, whether from personal experience or from others. 5. Blatant lies. Some of what we believe to be factual is not, but is based on deliberate falsehoods. Most of that is from others, but at times we lie to ourselves. 6. Assertions. At times 'truth' is merely declared, with no factual or logical basis. The raw data that comprises our knowledge base comes from two main sources: That which we learn and discover experientially, through our own senses and observation. That which others have imparted to us.Most of what we 'know' has been provided by others. Very little of our knowledge base is from self discovery.There are also many reasons and motivations for those who disseminate information to us. 1. Manipulation and control. Deliberate distortion of truth to extract money or action for the agenda of the manipulator. 2. Sincere ideological belief. They truly believe their information to be factual, and are providing a useful service for humanity. They might be completely wrong, partially wrong, or completely right. 3. It is their job. They have been hired by other parties to impart information, which might consist of truth, half truths, and lies, depending on the agendas of the other parties. But regardless of the source or motivation, most of our individual knowledge base is filled with facts, beliefs, and assumptions from others before us. So how do we verify the information imparted to us? Trust. We believe the information that really smart people have told us. Authority. Skepticism. We doubt the information from sources we don't trust. Null hypothesis. Verification. We research the information to see if it is credible. We discover that it is true, false, or unknown. Scientific methodology. The default human position *should* be, 'i don't know.' But that is not satisfying, so we prefer flawed assumptions and falsehoods to an admission of ignorance. I see a decline in the quest for Truth, for truth's sake, in this ever changing culture. The goal of modern propaganda is no longer to transform opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief ~Jacques Ellul Now we have a united front of propaganda.. a marxist/darwinist world view that has become the default pop religion of the day. Is the basis for this view on absolutes? Of course not. It is based on indoctrination, propaganda, & constant pounding of the world view until it becomes the only plausible belief system. There is no tolerance of other world views, in the pop religion of leftist ideology. Their elitist, state-centered, truth-by-decree philosophy has overcome any past views of open inquiry, scientific methodology, & critical thinking. So, how do you know if you have been indoctrinated? How do you know whether some of the things you believe to be true are nothing more than propaganda from an agenda driven ideology? 1. You live in modern western culture. 2. You went to a public school. 3. You have watched entertainment. 4. You have watched the news media. 5. You follow news feeds, and the selective information given by social media. IOW, if you have been alive in America over the last 50 yrs or so, you are a victim of indoctrination.. some of what you believe is nothing more than lies that have been spun to appear plausible. So how do you correct indoctrination? How do you determine the actual truthfulness of the things you believe? It is a never ending process, that requires skepticism over what we hear, a critical view of what we consider to be 'facts', & a gearing of the mind to pursue truth, whatever the cost to our belief system. He that would seriously set upon the search of truth ought in the first place to prepare his mind with a love of it. For he that loves it not will not take much pains to get it; nor be much concerned when he misses it. ~John Locke Of course, this all presupposes that truth can be known, & that the universe is not all relative, or filled with unknowable mysteries. But that is another topic.
What are the three main things that you think you know to be true that could be false because of your indoctrination? What are the three main things you think are false but which could be true because you were indoctrinated to believe that they are false?
Interesting how you missed the obvious. In order to know what is true or false, as opposed to the subjective value of "truth", you need to know yourself first and foremost. You need to know your own strengths and weaknesses and be honest enough to never lie to yourself about anything, Therein lies the rub! Because most people are not comfortable with their own thoughts. They don't want to deal with the questions and the issues in their own lives so they shut them out with incessant noise from outside. If the TV is always on or the music is always too loud in the car or the ipod is always in their ears or they are always texting, tweeting or talking that is the noise that distracts them from the truth about themselves. Getting to know oneself is difficult because no one else can tell you who you are, you can only learn that about yourself and acknowledge and accept who you are, warts and all. Pretending to be someone else is a common method of self deception. Knowing oneself is the first step and from there it is possible to gauge if what others are trying to say is true or false.
Of course. I am very critical of the information i receive, after years of indoctrination & discovering the flaws in reasoning, blatant lies, & muddled half-truths that were spoon fed into me in my formative years. This is why i look for evidence, & use observation & critical thinking to analyze concepts such as these in this thread. But this is not about me, but the principles i have presented here. This is a mirror thread.. it is a challenge to question.. question authority. Question what you have been taught. Think for yourself. Hit the mental reset & examine the things you believe. Are they based on objective reality, or mere belief? The more you sift through your knowledge base, & separate the things you 'know' from those that are merely beliefs, the more we will realize that we do not know as much as we think we do. There are a lot of things called 'knowledge' that are mere opinions. The very difficult discipline is to differentiate between them. That is a scientifically minded process, that is not taught by our education systems.. they in fact teach the opposite. They indoctrinate conformity, & insist that everyone think alike, shaming & ridiculing any outliers. The latest antics from academians over 'safe spaces', white privilege, political correctness, global warming, & a great many other beliefs are examples of this kind of peer pressure conformity. I don't think i missed anything.. this is just another factor in discovery. Knowing one's weaknesses & strengths is important in any analysis. I also tried to keep this short.. it is long enough without injecting a thorough analysis of every factor in human motivation. Actually, i see the concept of 'knowledge' to be the first step. Is it knowable? It is all relative? Is there an objective reality, or is it all fluid & changing? But i completely concur about the avoidance of thought in our modern society. Constant noise & commotion are preferred to a moment of thoughtful silence. People do not know how to formulate their own thoughts, but must have a running commentary from outside sources at all times. That is the essence of propaganda.. persistent, consistent, repetition of some desired belief is pounded into the hearers until they accept it as Truth. State propaganda, when supported by the educated classes and when no deviation is permitted from it, can have a big effect. It was a lesson learned by Hitler and many others, and it has been pursued to this day. ~Noam Chomsky
I bolded the above because you hit on another example of indoctrination. It is pounded into us from early childhood, taking a good principle of motivation (you can be whatever you want!) & applying it universally, without accepting the very real limitations. You cannot talk to animals, & listen to them talking back. You cannot be opposite the gender you were born with. You cannot be born rich, if you were born poor. Your skin, gender, height, body type are all the result of genetics, & you cannot change them, but must accept all the factors that make you Who You Are. So you are quite right about the disneyesque indoctrination about self identity. It is a flawed, irrational concept, & promotes confusion & insanity. It ignores the realities of life, & tries to overcome them with childhood fantasy. This is fine for children playing make believe, but if it continues into adulthood, it only breeds madness & folly.
My own first recollection of questioning authority was early on in elementary school when the teacher said that rain falls straight downwards. That was obviously wrong because windows get wet when it rains so there had to be something that was missing. That was the effect of the wind blowing on the rain but I was a very literal minded kid and a voracious reader. From that point onwards I questioned most things and wanted to see the proofs for myself. Math and science became subjects that I preferred because they were fact based with outcomes that could be proven. As I go older I took to solving the complexities of how we interact. When I learned of risk/reward behavior I started to question the motivations behind what was being provided either verbally or in writing. It became easy to spot hidden agendas and to question the supposed authority that was being used for nefarious purposes. Today we live in a world that teems with disinformation and the lessons I learned early on have stood me in good stead.
There is a fine line here and what you are identifying above is the failure of good intentions. A great deal of what we can accomplish is limited by self esteem. Those with low self esteem tend to be low achievers in life. By raising self esteem, the theory went, the greater the accomplishments that would be achieved. However it failed to take into account that there are other limitations upon accomplishments. It doesn't matter one iota how high your self esteem might be if you can't do math you won't ever become an accountant. And yes, there are some people for whom math will always be a mystery. The same applies in other areas. As I have pointed out to my spouse while I have a great many superpowers that enable me to take out the garbage and fix the sink I lack the ability to read her mind. No amount of self esteem is ever going to give me, or anyone else, that ability.
good points. I was talking about self identity, rather than self esteem. I see them as completely different concepts. They sometimes overlap, but they are different things. And, as with anything, it is better if both are based on objective reality, rather than fantasy. I might believe i can fly, or can dive underwater & stay for hours. Or i might wish to be a shapely, beautiful young woman. But these are not in the context of reality, & have nothing to do with my self esteem. I can think very highly of myself, without any of these identity problems. I guess i don't really see it as good intentions. I see it as being stuck in childhood fantasy, unable to enter the real world of objectivism. IMO, this is a major problem in academia, & is the central reason why graduates are not prepared for the real world. They prefer the fantasy world of academia, with its ivory towers, talking animals, & peer pressure conformity. But those do not work in the real world, where you have to interact with diverse people, get along with arrogant bosses, coworkers, & family members. The animals bite you, some people do not smile at you sweetly, & some people say rude things back. Some people even dare to have different beliefs, so it is quite a shock when entering the real world of diversity.
Which is very interesting, because what you post here is probably the best example I can think of for how I was indoctrinated. This is what I was indoctrinated to believe regarding Darwinism. It took a few years of critical thinking for me to overcome this view.
So are you saying that you believe man came fully formed from a lump of mud and that a woman popped fully formed from one of his ribs?
The opposite. What you describe is what I was indoctrinated to believe. It took a few years of critical thinking to overcome that view.
Religious indoctrination from a very early age is probably one of the most common forms of indoctrination worldwide.
That is one of the beliefs about origins, specifically human origins. It's not much different than the other popular view, that man slowly formed from a lump of mud over millions of years. Neither belief has any objective evidence, but are beliefs & speculations. I agree. That was one of the points of this thread. and it has been for millennia. And it is still going on. What makes you think that modern education is different? The 'religion' is different, but the indoctrination is the same. But instead of being some supernatural based belief system, it is a naturalistic one, rooted in darwinism & marxism. Is the Darwinist 'theory' of origins 'settled science'? No. It is a theory at best, and imo, not a very good one. Too many holes, & too dogmatic. Yet this 'theory' is indoctrinated into youth from infancy, & no deviation is allowed. I see the same with global warming, & other politically motivated areas of belief. There is not enough real science to back these 'theories', yet they are pitched as proven fact to gullible young people. The constant pounding from the media, entertainment, academia, govt, & just about every human institution (including many churches) has provided a unified propaganda stream for molding the worldview of the citizens. Free thinking is not allowed, but conformity.
Evolution has been verified via 3 different and separate scientific disciplines. Perhaps the most contested is the fossil record but that has been corroborated by the science of DNA. For instance it has been possible to establish that the hyrax (rock rabbit) is related to both the elephants and sea cows even though all 3 are distinctly different species evolving to live in their own environmental niche. The 3rd science that verifies evolution is selctive breeding by mankind. Without evolution it would not be possible to breed tame farm animals and vegetable and grain variants that can be grown and harvested. FTR a little known fact about Darwin is that he based his adaptive evolutionary theory upon a book about market capitalism written by a friend of his who was Reverend in the Church of England. When you examine capitalism and the market economics that dictate a "survival of the fittest" ,AKA most profitable, it is a parallel to how creatures adapt and thrive in their own "market" environments. Lions would not survive if there were not a "market" of grazing animals and those would not survive if there were not a "market" of ample grasslands. So we disagree when it comes to evolution. I am very much a fact based person who requires that there be evidence to prove the theory. That evidence exists and is corroborated by multiple scientific disciplines which is why I can accept the factual data.
Yes i know. This always hits a nerve, & people cannot have a rational discussion about the ToE.. i know. I've tried many times in this forum to point out the flaws in the ToE, in multiple threads.. you've probably engaged in them before. But the point is, this is a major point of indoctrination for the official state religion of secular humanism. It is the ONLY theory of origins allowed.. which is very ironic, as it used to be forbidden, early last century, until it took the upper hand, & now they ban the other theory! I don't really believe you have facts for your beliefs about evolution.. you have very strong beliefs, but not really facts. Oh, you have surmises, speculations, & extrapolations, but facts? Not so much. Evolution as it is presented, the 'molecule to man' theory of macro evolution, has not been observed, not been repeated, has tons of genetic hurdles to cross, & is full of holes, both in empirical facts & rationale. It is not my intent to have another evolution debate here, but i see it as a major example of the state's indoctrination platform. This darwinistic naturalism, along with a blend of marxist collectivism, is steeped in modern academia.. it is more important than anything, it seems, to the purveyors of knowledge. Students come from school without the ability to read, write, spell, or balance checkbooks, but they can tell you very dogmatically about the 'fact' of evolution, global warming, & the evils of capitalism. They have no sense of history, don't know geography or much of any real science, but they 'know' that evolution is how we came to be. I find that amazing. It is a blatant disregard for real knowledge, passed over for some ideological agenda. It is a major indicator of the decline of the American Experiment, scientific methodology, & the age of reason. The age of reason is over. We live in a time of anti-science.. wild theories about aliens & origins fill the airwaves, while real science is ignored.
Putting aside the scientific evidence of evolution and focusing on the topic, which is indoctrination, you are correct that the ToE is taught in schools. If kids were also taught that everything else is "wrong" then that would be indoctrination but that is not the case. Kids are taught about the scientific method and shown how it is self correcting. The alternate indoctrination of "creation science" has been attempted in various guises but fails because it violates the Constitution's prohibition on the government endorsing a religion. Yes, we do live in a time of "anti-science" and it will cost this nation dearly if the science deniers have their way and impose their beliefs on school kids instead of allowing them to learn the scientific method.
Where do you think gold, tin, lead, and silver come from? Do you think they are floating around all over the place or were they created through an evolutionary process from celestial hydrogen? Current humanity is simply a transitional life form. If we continue to survive we will continue to evolve and at some distant point will look completely different than they way we look now. By that time even the dumbest person will realize that they are simply the result of evolution.
I guess my only answer for the origin of those elements would be 'i don't know'. I don't have any compelling evidence to make such a conjecture. I will venture an educated guess that you don't really 'know' either. You may believe it was from such & such, or took billions of years of simpler elements floating about in space, then zapped by some gamma rays or something.. but i find such a theory fantastic.. just as wild as Dawkins speculating that alien seeding as his belief of life on earth's origins. I submit that there are a great many things that people believe to be facts, but are mere opinions, based on nothing but speculation or assertion. You cannot have any empirical proof that the elements you listed formed from anything, much less speculated about hydrogen or some other process. Celestial Hydrogen? Is that like the flying spaghetti monster? Your 'belief' that humanity is simply a transitional form is merely another opinion. You have NO transitional forms before or after humanity. Our DNA can be traced from the mitochondrial gene to a common mother for all human beings, black, white, asian, whatever. We all descended from the same base stock. But i do thank you for illustrating how deep the indoctrination goes, in that speculations such as these are presented & pounded into people as factual, when they are not even good theories. In my experience, the dumbest people are those who do not think or question authority or the purveyors of the knowledge base. Nodding like bobble heads just because self proclaimed 'experts' declare something as 'truth!' is about as dumb as you can get. ..since you wanted to refer to 'dumb people', i thought i'd throw in my definition, too.
Before the 70s, creation was taught throughout the American school systems. Evolution was outlawed in some districts until the late 60s! Now, creation is outlawed!! i find this deliciously ironic, in a 'quest for knowledge' kind of way. Was technology impotent until the late 60s? Of course, i don't believe that the courts should be involved in what is taught in the classrooms, but neither do i believe that any branch (especially federal) should be. But that is another topic. I also find the 'govt endorsing religion' argument to be absurd, as they already endorse a secular humanist, darwinian marxist worldview, & indoctrinate it regularly in classrooms, public television, national parks, & other federally sponsored projects of indoctrination. I agree. The govt should NOT endorse any religion. But naturalistic darwinism is just as much a religion as your flying spaghetti monsters. I also see that the 'science deniers' already have their way, & ruthlessly indoctrinate their beliefs on school kids.. who can tell you every tenet of AGW, or the ToE, but cannot spell, add, subtract, or tell you any historical fact or geographical location.
It's evident that you haven't been indoctrinated into what passes for 21st Century reality. Since we have such widely different views of reality it's useless to speak to each other. Bye.
Oh i have.. like most people. But i also have looked at other sides, & researched my knowledge base to sift out the lies from the valid truths. Its not impossible, but takes some honest reasoning & research. But you are probably right.. no point in debating something when there is no common knowledge base, aka 'reality'. See you around.
As far as I am aware, teaching Creationism is not allowed to be done in science classes in most major liberal democracies, mainly because it isn't science. Neither is 'Irreducible Complexity' or 'Intelligent Design' or any of the other host of ways that the 'Teach the Controversy' crowd have tried to put lipstick on the pig. As far as I am aware, the story of creation can be taught in schools in most major liberal democracies as part of a humanities or religious instruction lesson so, your assertion is rejected. Interestingly, the places where Creationism as 'science' is taught in classrooms tend not to be liberal democracies. Why do you hate democracy so much? The beliefs and opinions that are emerging from your posts suggest that I might be able to extract a few dollars from you if I tell you what you want to hear. If I send you my bank details and tell you that I am fighting the NWO will you send me some money?
