Hello,

Instead of calling it evolution, why not call it patterns?

Peter.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Rosenberg" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 05 October 2000 23:38
Subject: Re: Evolution and Cognitive Dissonance


> Whatever you posit about why students reject evolutionary theory, the use
of
> the concept of "cognitive dissonance" is somewhat off mark. The term does,
> indeed, originate with Leon Festinger but it means soemthing more precise
> than "inconsistency" which is what you really mean to designate. Cognitive
> dissonance theory, at least as regards attitudes, focusses upon
> "counter-attitudinal advocacy undertaken for high or low incentives (i.e.
> promised rewards). The apparently paradocxical prediction is that whover
> areues against his own convictions for minimally rewarding enticement is
> more likely to shift his attitude in the formerly inauthentic direction
than
> the one who does the same for more rewarding enticement. There are
terrible
> limits to the applicability of this model (cf. my article When Dissonance
> Fails in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology way back in 1965 or
> thereabouts).
> So, back to the more basic an non-musical term "inconsistency" which
> designates any and all cognitive encounters with mutually opposed
> propositions or percepts.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Mann [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:30 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Evolution and Cognitive Dissonance
>
>
> Subject:      Evolution and Cognitive Dissonance
>
> The heavily qualified Stephen Sacks wrote:
> >
> >Some of you may have observed that after teaching evolution and testing
> >students' knowledge of it, some of the A and B students comment that
> >although they understand Darwin's concepts, they nevertheless do not
> believe
> >it.  Surely some of the students had religious training and come from
> >religious families, but many of the students are secular with non
religious
> >peers and culture.
> >
> >One explanation is, since the students demonstrated they learned the
> >concepts, cognitive dissonance occurred (Leon Fessinger). The students
> >reject evolution as a way of reducing the dissonance as opposed to
> embracing
> >evolutionary thought to reduce the dissonance.
> >
> >Another explanation is, students reject attempts to get them to
personally
> >accommodate to Darwin thought now matter how well they understand the
> >concepts.
> >
> >Another explanation is the students are bright and they have attempted to
> >intellectually falsify the thesis, and they wind up rejecting it because
of
> >its weaknesses and not being airtight.
> >
> >Just how far do you think teaching should go to encourage personal
> >accommodation and adaptation to evolutionary thought? If faculty
encourage
> >to students to use what they learn, is not social construction being
> >introduced in science teaching?
> >
> >Your thoughts on any of the above will be appreciated. If there is enough
> >interest and new analysis, we may want to publish an article about it.
> >
>
>         I don't doubt that all these influences operate.
>         In NZ universities, teachers report considerable numbers of
> students turning away from biology because it is taught with evolution
> suitably woven in, whereas the students' parents are 'creationists'.  This
> is a very unfortunate malign influence on education.
>         But I like to think some students perceive, if only vaguely, that
> neoDarwinism is one of the biggest intellectual con-tricks of all time.
> This has been shown by N D Broom in his book 'How Blind Is The
Watchmaker?'
> (Ashgate 1998) and shortly before in The Ecologist.
>
> R
>
> -
> Robt Mann
> consultant ecologist
> P O Box 28878   Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
>                 (9) 524 2949
>