yes.

[kaigou]

Religion is a circumstance of birth for most people. We're indoctrinated into it and that's where we hang out for most of our lives, wallowing in and out of varying degrees of fanaticism for it. ... Yeah, people convert, but outside of countries where [there's] Freedom of Religion or something, [for] the most part, generically speaking, you are what your parents taught you to be.

killermuff rocks my world.

Comments

[pixiepilot.livejournal.com]

Well, both my parents are college grads, and we were raised to ask questions about everything, yet my family remains highly religious. *grins* Then again, my religion encourages us to ask all questions as well. Asking questions isn't just a necessity for religion, but for all life experiences. I think it's a really good habit to get into, and will teach my kids the same. ;) The cool thing is that all of my question asking has brought me right back to my religion. I'm not bragging, I just think it's pretty neat. I am really grateful to live in a country of religious tolerance and freedom.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

I think the key difference is whether or not the parents provide the answers.

I meant college professors--and by that I mean, advanced degrees (masters and phd)--but perhaps I should qualify that further as 'those who teach in branches which rely on statistical sciences'. Psychology, industrial management, economics, anthropology, sociology, etc--all of these, at some point during the course of grad school--will have to do extensive comparative studies on the information gathered.

From a lifetime of knowing college professors of various ilks (including both parents), it seems that gathering information is the numero uno stage, and is not to be stopped once you've reached a satisfactory conclusion, but continued to the point that the evidence is unsatisfactory (in the sense of disproving one's theory). Those in the analytical sciences begin a hypothesis, in part, to test whether this hypothesis will/can be disproven. If it can, it's amended and tested again, or thrown out and something new is tried. The long-term submersion in the academic culture means this 'gathering information' is never left behind. With every new class of students, the teacher's process begins again. That's going to have a huge impact on how one parents, IME.

Given that my parents believe that "being called An Authority doesn't make someone Right," I'm not surprised my father likes to say, "check your sources." That necessarily includes all those who may/do disagree with your pet hypothesis. If you only read up on agreeing sources, that's not research. That's just mental masturbation.

*snerk* Yes, that last sentence is a quote from my mother.

[pixiepilot.livejournal.com]

...it seems that gathering information is the numero uno stage, and is not to be stopped once you've reached a satisfactory conclusion, but continued to the point that the evidence is unsatisfactory (in the sense of disproving one's theory).

I'm not sure I understand, but it sounds like you're saying these professors keep gathering information until they go beyond what seems reasonable and continue until the reasonable isn't anymore. That seems to assume that gathering information is more important than making something of it, which just seems silly to me. Is there no end point where an answer is The Answer? I've tested a lot of theories personally - so if they withstand every testing, if they hold true and never let me down, do I continue to question them for the rest of my life? My reason to gather as much information as possible is to use it to make my life and the lives of those around me better. (That's not to say I'll ever stop gathering information, I'm here to learn as much as I can about everything I can.)

Given that my parents believe that "being called An Authority doesn't make someone Right," I'm not surprised my father likes to say, "check your sources." That necessarily includes all those who may/do disagree with your pet hypothesis. If you only read up on agreeing sources, that's not research. That's just mental masturbation.

*winces* Your mother has a talent for vivid metaphor, but I agree completely. Check sources, read differing opinions, ask tough questions and look at varying points of view. Otherwise it's merely a mental pat on the back, earned or not, but not learning. I like what your dad says, as well. So many authorities in the world, so few of them with anything useful to say.

[kaigou.livejournal.com]

it sounds like you're saying these professors keep gathering information until they go beyond what seems reasonable and continue until the reasonable isn't anymore

No. It's not enough to prove one's theory; you must also disprove the antithesis of one's theory. So finding 'enough information' that satisfies your requirements: here, all this says my theory is true--that's not good enough. It's common in the analytical sciences to ask whether there's an opposite of the argument (is it falsifiable) and whether that can be proven/argued. The same is done in theological dialectic, where one argues the thesis, and then the antithesis, and thereby proves the thesis via synthesis.

That's what I meant by going past the point of satisfactory to unsatisfactory: reach for the point of digging up contradictory information, and then study it as keenly as the supporting evidence. It often reveals as much about one's theory as that which supports your theory.

I've tested a lot of theories personally - so if they withstand every testing, if they hold true and never let me down, do I continue to question them for the rest of my life?

IMO? Yes.

How will you know beliefs continue to hold true if you don't ask the questions that will test those beliefs and make sure?