I find this statement odd as science and the scientific method are clearly taught in school. There are many shows on TV which clearly describe how the scientific method works, engaging the audiences to performing their own scientific experiments; not to mention countless documentaries which go into quite detail how certain discoveries were made. Science is not reserved for the "elitist".
I agree that "the" scientific method is clearly taught in school. Do you acknowledge that this method is not (exactly) what many / overwhelming majority of accomplished scientists are practicing? Hence the claim of indoctrination. At the newbie level, one thing is taught as if it rather concrete, and is the totality of science. Perhaps essence is better word. Though the idea that multiple methods are not readily found nor seemingly conveyed to the newly initiated, while seasoned practitioners are essentially ignoring the grade school version is only partial elitism. The fact that one can perform scientific experiments under "the" scientific method and not be considered (actual) scientists is where I see elitism coming more pronounced. Like everyone in this thread who's done these scientific experiments in school, ought to be considered a scientists, unless they have somehow, on their own completely disavowed science (akin to atheism in religion). If they have not, then while they might not be advanced scientists, they are definitely scientists, have experience with "the" method. But because other methodology exists that seems to take a whole lot away from "the" method, it's as if you aren't 'really' a scientist until you advance far enough to publish your own results. The fact that one ought to be (has to be?) credentialed scientist to properly review another's findings is clearly elitist. Any other field that would do this, say religion, would be lambasted for the elitism it is trying to establish when the data could be shared with anyone, evaluated by anyone.
Moreover, your comment about "indoctrination" is also interesting.
Indoctrination is defined as "to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs". In short, an "indoctrinated" person simply accepts what is being told to them without question. While there are many whom I have met who say "Yea, I accept /believe in Evolution" yet they don't understand the fundamentals or evidence behind it ... they're just saying they "agree" based on "argument from authority" -- and these persons certainly fit the bill. However, this isn't what science is about. It encourages others to ask questions and is prepared to do opposite of indoctrination -- accept new ideas when sufficiently proven.
Agreed. It's not 100% indoctrination. If it were, my points of indoctrination would be old news, widely known. I think they are less known because if I go ask any non-practicing scientist (of the paid research variety) what is science, they'll regurgitate some form of "the" method. I believe if I asked say 100 people (non-scientist types) if this is the method they think molecular biologists are following or cosmologists (or any sub-field), I think most (like 85%) would assume yes, and of the ones who are no, probably wouldn't know what alternative methodology is being practiced. I would concede that it is possible out of 100 people, that some might actually understand the methodology being practiced in a sub-field and know that the fundamental methodology (they were taught) is, of course, not what a seasoned scientist is practicing/following. Though, I do wonder how many would come to that understanding on their own, so obviously such a survey would depend on how questions were asked, whether they are leading respondents to consider ideas that "the" method they are familiar with is not what most scientists actually practice.
But I say all this because within context of indoctrination, and the definition's words of "to not consider other ideas, opinions and beliefs" - that could be spun two ways (at least). Like, not considering creationism when being taught "how life in the universe came into existence" - that would be a form of indoctrination to ignore that, but IMO, not so much and is NOT what I'm getting at. I'm getting at the idea that within science itself, actual scientists would possibly have a whole lot to say (correct) in what is being taught to students, as if those students are not being given the actual picture of what actual scientists do. Such that if I do start a thread right now about "what is science" and let's agree that hypothetically no practicing scientist response, I could see myself arguing with people who are self-convinced "the" method is what science is, and what most to all scientist engage in. As I have been in numerous threads along lines of "what is science" or "is this (particular action) science?" - I do have the anecdotal evidence to support my conclusions. If I type in google search "what is science" - more evidence to support my claims.
To me, all this seems plainly obvious. Not sure why I keep going with it, but perhaps more discussion will provide further clarification on just how much indoctrination is occurring. I will say if I had to compare it to other types of indoctrination I'm familiar with, it is rather tame. But does become less tame, in my book, if I as non-practicing scientist (of the paid research variety) were to enter into any type of discussion among sub-field advanced types and start raising questions, I witness to the elitism of which I speak. Suddenly the "right" questions with "right" analysis and "right" credentials are seen as supremely important for any discussion to be had. Thankfully, some (IMO, very few) science aficionados will tolerate essentially any question and hold a reasonable discussion. Most fans/advanced types strike me as thinking it beneath them to entertain such questions.
To a degree, you do have a point here. Finding real scientific articles is arduous work sometimes; and often, one has to pay for it. Neil De Grasse Tyson criticizes this and stipulates that by making information difficult to obtain, science isn't doing itself any favors.
To another degree, you don't have a point. The information is out there, it is not considered a "secret", and if you want it bad enough, you can find it ... especially in today's age; what, with the internet and all ...
I didn't say secret, and did say closely guarded. I agree with what you've said Tyson has raised as criticism. I share in that. Though I do recognize that here in the information age, "published results" has become a bit of a problem, as setting up an appearance of a forum/publication where other (credentialed) scientists will review the work is not all that challenging to do. Thus, there are more trusted or long established outlets and ones that are less trusted. The whole paywall thing, every time I've looked into it (understanding both sides of why it exists) strikes me as huge problem that is still sorting itself out. But in sound bite rhetoric, I find it hard to remove the elitism charge from the discussion while paywalls exist. It comes down to how readily accessible are current scientific findings.
So ... The Universe is intelligent because scientists exist?
I observe we have evidence of this, yes.
