Groupthink?

[Guest K.R.E.B.S]

I'm reading a book by Dr. Armand M Nicholi called "The Question of God." It's about Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis and each of their thoughts about God. Page 20 of the book says,

"Historian Peter Gay refers to the 'sizable pockets of anticlericalism and of secularists contempt for all religion' that pervaded European culture during Freud's years in medical school. Many of these 'pockets' involved the medical community, whose acceptance Freud strongly desired - for his professional advancement early in his career, and later, for the acceptance of his theories."

This got me thinking. Do you think there's an efeebling sense of groupthink going on in the scientific community? If I'm a student of science who wants a career, am I going to go against the flow of what everybody else - my professor, colleagues, and possible employers - think? It's like the idea of tell the professor what he/she wants to hear or thinks and you get the grade. Just a thought.

Let's hash it out with love and respect,

Joe

[Guest K.R.E.B.S]

Cool, another science student. ...What kind of science?

Actually, I'd prefer a student of philosophy...and I like to read alot. Not a "scientist" and have never professed to be one. Well, I guess I'm a Natural Philosopher without the "natural." Anyway, not sure why you thought I was one...

I'm sure science is unfortunately afflicted by groupthink, as is every human institution. In fact, it is to some extent fundamental to science. Have you ever read any works of Thomas Kuhn? In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions he presented a theory that has become very popular, the theory of the paradigm. Basically, science's status quo is considered a paradigm, and it is very popular and it is not questioned as much as it should be. Then, people begin noticing exceptions to paradigmatic theories, and they begin to question the paradigm. These scientists might be ridiculed at first, but their hypotheses gain increasing support and increasing evidence, and eventually they overturn to old paradigm. Ok, that was a very simplistic overview, but hopefully you get the idea.

Yes, I've read much more complex things, so I think...I get the idea. I do believe this is happening with Evolution as you mention later.***But let's please, please, please, PLEASE, not start talking about that. Can we stay on the topic at hand? Anyway, I think I'll pick up Kuhn's book...and read it of course.

I am assuming you are a creationist, so if you keep these views you will inevitably question the paradigm that is evolution. I salute you, sir. We need more of you. We need more people to question the preeminent views, because Kuhn's theory suggests people don't ask enough questions. Only through questioning the current paradigm can we expect it to have any kind of scientific rigor. By testing against it, we can see how it holds up.

I wouldn't identify myself as a Creationists, but I do believe God created everything. However, I don't profess to know by what means - nor do I believe it's life and death for us to "know."

RH, I'm not sure how to take your comments. Well, how to respond, more specifically. I've prayed to the Lord to help me respond gently to you and I do believe I am. The reason I'm saying this is because I've read a lot of your posts in other forums and can't help but see how much you talk "down" to people. It's not that I don't agree with your comments, it's that they seem confrontational very often.

I realize you're defending your position ardently, which is great. And I'm sorry if my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ on this board don't hold up to the same standards I'm talking about, but let's be conscious of it.

So back to topic,

So you do agree there is groupthink in the scientific community?

With the most respect,

Joe

[Guest lnj]

Cool, another science student. ...What kind of science?

Actually, I'd prefer a student of philosophy...and I like to read alot. Not a "scientist" and have never professed to be one. Well, I guess I'm a Natural Philosopher without the "natural." Anyway, not sure why you thought I was one...

I'm sure science is unfortunately afflicted by groupthink, as is every human institution. In fact, it is to some extent fundamental to science. Have you ever read any works of Thomas Kuhn? In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions he presented a theory that has become very popular, the theory of the paradigm. Basically, science's status quo is considered a paradigm, and it is very popular and it is not questioned as much as it should be. Then, people begin noticing exceptions to paradigmatic theories, and they begin to question the paradigm. These scientists might be ridiculed at first, but their hypotheses gain increasing support and increasing evidence, and eventually they overturn to old paradigm. Ok, that was a very simplistic overview, but hopefully you get the idea.

Yes, I've read much more complex things, so I think...I get the idea. I do believe this is happening with Evolution as you mention later.***But let's please, please, please, PLEASE, not start talking about that. Can we stay on the topic at hand? Anyway, I think I'll pick up Kuhn's book...and read it of course.

I am assuming you are a creationist, so if you keep these views you will inevitably question the paradigm that is evolution. I salute you, sir. We need more of you. We need more people to question the preeminent views, because Kuhn's theory suggests people don't ask enough questions. Only through questioning the current paradigm can we expect it to have any kind of scientific rigor. By testing against it, we can see how it holds up.

I wouldn't identify myself as a Creationists, but I do believe God created everything. However, I don't profess to know by what means - nor do I believe it's life and death for us to "know."

RH, I'm not sure how to take your comments. Well, how to respond, more specifically. I've prayed to the Lord to help me respond gently to you and I do believe I am. The reason I'm saying this is because I've read a lot of your posts in other forums and can't help but see how much you talk "down" to people. It's not that I don't agree with your comments, it's that they seem confrontational very often.

I realize you're defending your position ardently, which is great. And I'm sorry if my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ on this board don't hold up to the same standards I'm talking about, but let's be conscious of it.

So back to topic,

So you do agree there is groupthink in the scientific community?

With the most respect,

Joe

Joe,

Hi! Most definitely. I believe 100% there is groupthink in the scientific community and I'm no expert by any means but the applause of men and the esteem held in the eyes of their fellow men far outweigh the bold attempt to speak out against the current . For a community that needs visual, scientific proof above all things, how can a scientist of non conventional standards especially a Creationist succeed? Having said that, there's a great scientific magazine called Creation that's well worth the read, as well as the Answers In Genesis website. LNJ

[secondeve]

I'm reading a book by Dr. Armand M Nicholi called "The Question of God." It's about Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis and each of their thoughts about God. Page 20 of the book says,

"Historian Peter Gay refers to the 'sizable pockets of anticlericalism and of secularists contempt for all religion' that pervaded European culture during Freud's years in medical school. Many of these 'pockets' involved the medical community, whose acceptance Freud strongly desired - for his professional advancement early in his career, and later, for the acceptance of his theories."

This got me thinking. Do you think there's an efeebling sense of groupthink going on in the scientific community? If I'm a student of science who wants a career, am I going to go against the flow of what everybody else - my professor, colleagues, and possible employers - think? It's like the idea of tell the professor what he/she wants to hear or thinks and you get the grade. Just a thought.

Let's hash it out with love and respect,

Joe

I would say, yes - groupthink can be found in the scientific community. I would also balance this by saying that it would be more remarkable if it wasn't. I apologise if I'm reading too much into your post, K.R.E.B.S, but it seems as if the reason one might post this kind of topic is to imply - or to at least test the waters with - the idea that certain mainstream scientific ideas are only maintained because of groupthink, and perhaps not because of their actual merit. I would say that probably groupthink does contribute to the maintenance of certain mainstream scientific ideas, but that this doesn't mean those ideas are without merit to begin with. And, in its favour, science is a field which, sooner or later, tends to get bored with just accepting the status quo, and starts prodding it again - and even if they don't come to a new conclusion, it's the prodding which is important.

The idea of groupthink makes me think of how culture is formed. Start out with a few base social mores applied by the people in charge. Anyone wanting to advance in that society must adhere to the mores set down by those above. They then work within these mores themselves, so the next generation does likewise, thus initiating a social tradition. After that, it becomes harder and harder to challenge the mores themselves, because this is essentially seen by many as challenging the intelligence, not only of the founders of the mores, but of everyone who has adhered to them. But, sooner or later, there's a revolution in most societies, overthrowing old mores for new, or at least adding nto the existing ones. Or maybe they're tested, and found acceptable. Point being, groupthink isn't remarkable in and of itself - it only becomes potentially dangerous when we forget to ask questions.

[Joshua-777]

Several weeks ago I made the metaphor that worshipers are just dreamers affirming a common dream. It is this group affirmation that keeps the dream alive, not the actual truth of the dream. Obviously as a believer you are forced to disagree with my analogy, but the power of affirmation has been observed time and time again both within and outside of religion.

True, I could agree with this in a sence, but not the sence in the point your making, no I wasn't so much raised christian, and "group think" didn't affect my believing, it affected my non-believing, Ya see, we as people are influenced by our suroundings, and by people around is, as the bible says don't be unequaly yoked, Those around us influence us as we influence others around us. Affermation verses God, I'm sorry there is a little more to God, than affermation and beliefe. Once again if you want to know Jesus personally, ask him, not in a sence, Prove it to me that your real and I'll believe you, but ask him really wanting to know if he is the way the truth and the life, and ya probibly will get an answer. Ya see, affermation is a big part of society, even in evolution, people tend to believe anything, but truth is only in Jesus Christ, so it is separate from Affermation. You can debate me, well once you know him personally, there is nothing to debate. now with wicca, what I realized is that group thing affects the results, well honestly that whole religion is demonic and holds it's power from manipulation, muslim, is actualy spread by violence, if you look into it, you'll find kill all infidels, and alot of messed up stuff, that is power by fear and force, as well as manipulation, now honestly the main point I'm trying to make is that we as humans stand in unity in different branches, Now those who are christian worship Jesus in unity and love, and there is real power there, I have seen countless people healed, seen some crazy things, the real power is in Jesus, worshiping anything else actualy bends to someones will and is manipulation to believe. I am lead to believe that faith it's self is a powerful thing, Faith in Jesus is the most powerful. peace and love!

[Guest lnj]

Not so. Not all believers here believe in the history of Creation as is explained in Genesis of the Old Testament..

...Because most of them were raised as a child to do so. They were brought up in communities in which these beliefs were the norm. If you were born in India you would probably be a Hindu. If you were born in Pakistan you would probably be a Muslim. Of course our religious beliefs are impacted by the thoughts--the groupthink--of those around us.

Several weeks ago I made the metaphor that worshipers are just dreamers affirming a common dream. It is this group affirmation that keeps the dream alive, not the actual truth of the dream. Obviously as a believer you are forced to disagree with my analogy, but the power of affirmation has been observed time and time again both within and outside of religion.

runners high

Not so, not only do Christians not agree on Creation issues but on the whole Bible itself. Just read the posts on this site. Religion today is a myriad of ideas and actions of what the original was supposed to be. Agreement within a Church itself is a rare thing today. Savation through Jesus Christ is the same for everybody but personal relationships vary from personality to personality. LNJ

[Guest lnj]

Not so, not only do Christians not agree on Creation issues but on the whole Bible itself. Just read the posts on this site. Religion today is a myriad of ideas and actions of what the original was supposed to be. Agreement within a Church itself is a rare thing today. Savation through Jesus Christ is the same for everybody but personal relationships vary from personality to personality. LNJ

Of course people dispute the details. But they all affirm the basic principles, like a creator deity, the sacrifice his son made, the presence of Heaven and Hell, etc. The existence of differences in agreement and interpretation do not tell us anything about the truth of Christianity. It could be real, or it could just be a dream.

An intimate relationship with the Creator and Author of Life is not a dream. It is a reality that when experienced , is very hard to "turn back."

[Guest lnj]

Not so, not only do Christians not agree on Creation issues but on the whole Bible itself. Just read the posts on this site. Religion today is a myriad of ideas and actions of what the original was supposed to be. Agreement within a Church itself is a rare thing today. Savation through Jesus Christ is the same for everybody but personal relationships vary from personality to personality. LNJ

Of course people dispute the details. But they all affirm the basic principles, like a creator deity, the sacrifice his son made, the presence of Heaven and Hell, etc. The existence of differences in agreement and interpretation do not tell us anything about the truth of Christianity. It could be real, or it could just be a dream.

An intimate relationship with the Creator and Author of Life is not a dream. It is a reality that when experienced , is very hard to "turn back."

And the reality of this relationship is the aboslute 360 turn from old to new in the person. It is stronger than human willpower and is very hard to explain but it is definitely a reality.LNJ

[systemstrike_7]

And the reality of this relationship is the aboslute 360 turn from old to new in the person. It is stronger than human willpower and is very hard to explain but it is definitely a reality.LNJ

A 360-turn would be a complete revolution, so afterwards you'd still be facing in the same direction.

Haha, I was watching Sharapova win some tennis tourney and she made the exact same mistake. It was really funny. She basically said that in order to beat her opponent she had to make a 360 degree turn to change the way she played, but unfortunately this would result in the exact same play.

Sorry, I'll get back on subject.

Concerning your remark, RH, that creationism will always fail because there is no scientific backing to proclaim its truth, there is a huge deficiency in this statement. Creationism doesn't need proof, it is proved by the fact that science has failed to explain the existence of life on our unique planet Earth. Evolution might be able to explain the journey, but it says nothing of the beginning. The Miller expiriment was a tremendous failure. Miller stacked the deck to get the results he wanted. He created a primitive earth environment that is completely lacking in any scientific backing. So as you can see, Creationism doesn't carry the burden of proof, rather it is carried by the inability of science to solve this problem without including an Intelligent Designer. Of course we will not be able to prove Intelligent Design, where would our choices come from then? But I do believe that it should be given as a plausible theory that is given as much credit, if not more, as Evolution.

[Joshua-777]

If it had as much evidence as evolution, I would be happy to give it credit.

Really now?