Category talk:HIV/AIDS denialism

Moved from User talk:Orangemarlin

Please refrain from making any more changes to the various AIDS-related categories, until they can be discussed in more detail. If you're acting on the outcome of a previous consensus, please point me in the direction of that discussion so I can check it out. Otherwise, please suggest a place where such a discussion might be held. I'm opposed to replacing "dissident" or "reappraisal" with "denialist" or "denialism" in all cases, since I think the terms mean different things and help to highlight the differences between the positions of the various nut-jobs (and occasional genuine critic/skeptic.) --Sapphic (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Reappraisal is wiki-universe weasel word. The scientific community calls these individuals denialists. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No.. what? No, you won't refrain from making undiscussed edits? I don't think you really mean that. And what do you mean about "reappraisal" — I assure you it was a word long before the first wiki. Look, I think the denialists are nut-jobs, but not all of the people in Category:AIDS dissidents or Category:AIDS reappraisal were denialists. Arguing that the state of publication of AIDS research is sloppy (as Kary Mullis has, for example) is very different than denying the existence of AIDS (like Duesberg has, at least with regards to AIDS in Africa.) Just because the denialists try to count the dissidents as being "on their side" doesn't mean they really are on the same side. I don't see how lumping them all into the same category helps anyone — in fact, it probably helps the denialists portray themselves as the victims of an unfair conspiracy, more than anything else. I think this should be discussed in a more public forum so if you have any suggestions as to where that might be, that would help. --Sapphic (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point, Sapphic, I fully agree. First I thought OrangeMarlin simply didn't really read when he edited my correction but it seems he thinks he knows it "better" - "The scientific community calls these individuals denialists" - ehhh what? You mean the very "community" (what is that BTW? which one? who are these people? defined by who, you? these people are challenging? Don't be ridiculous, your reasoning defeats your own point. Calling them "denialists" is purely nothing but the very typical name calling which I've seen in every field whenever the status quo is challenged.Szlevi (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that Kary Mullis is a good example. He wrote in an introduction to Duesberg's book: "No one has ever proved that HIV causes AIDS. We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV." That's denialism. Whether Kary Mullis should be defined by his stance on HIV/AIDS as opposed to other accomplishments or controversies is a good question. MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, I don't care if he has a Nobel Prize or not, denying the vast wealth of science supporting the link between HIV and AIDS means that all of his research is invalidated. Back to sapphic. Every single person placed in the AIDS dissidents category specifically denied that HIV causes AIDS. That's denialism. If I made a mistake and someone is "dissenting" from treating HIV infection by using holy water from Lourdes, I'm all right with calling them a dissident, as long as they're not denying the science of the link between HIV and AIDS. But what you'll see in every one of these biographies is that they usually deny Evolution, Global Warming, and other basic scientific theories. I'm surprised by Mullis' attitude, but not shocked. Finally, AIDS reappraisal is not used by any scientist, because it implies that there is science that's being "restudied". It isn't. There aren't a single peer-reviewed article on this "reappraisal." They don't get to make a choice on how they are labelled, as long as they are fringe theorists. But if this needs to be discussed, it should be at AIDS denialism, not here. But I will move to AfD the category, because it is POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Every single person placed in the AIDS dissidents category specifically denied that HIV causes AIDS. That's denialism." - This is just plain wrong and correct me if I'm wrong but you shouldn't edit *anything* when you clearly barely have a clue about it.Szlevi (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, Kary Mullis is a surfer who ascribes, in part, his discovery of the polymerase chain reaction to his uses of LSD. (And, since this statement is actually true and not defamatory, it wouldn't even be a BLP violation in the mainspace.) He's an expert on PCR, not on HIV/AIDS, unless I've missed some big contribution to the literature that he's made (and I haven't). Antelan^talk 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mullis has never (to my knowledge) denied that HIV causes AIDS — rather, he has argued that the link hasn't been proven (according to his admittedly stringent standards.) His complaint is with the standards of scientific publishing and the conclusions drawn by the public and even other researchers, not with the scientific facts themselves. If you read his statements carefully, this is all perfectly clear: "No one has ever proved that HIV causes AIDS." Notice that this isn't "HIV does not cause AIDS." Mullis has always argued for more basic research so that the link can be sufficiently proven, not that the link doesn't exist. To lump him in with nut-jobs and label them all "denialists" is to lend strength to the argument of the denialists, by letting them claim a very bright (if strange) nobel prize-winning researcher as their own. That just doesn't make sense to me, and given your obvious opposition to those people, I don't understand why you'd want to do that. Drawing a distinction between the denialists and the dissidents/skeptics is useful, because I think you'll find that the most "respectable" of the lot all fall into the dissident category and don't actually support the denialist movement at all (except on a superficial reading of their positions, perhaps.) --Sapphic (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

PCR was a remarkable discovery and he more than deserved his Nobel Prize. Whether calling him a "denialist" strengthens or weakens the credibility of AIDS denialism isn't really my concern here; the accuracy of the description is. I would be interested in seeing a distinction between "dissident/skeptics" and "denialists" drawn in an independent, reliable source, because I'm not aware of such a distinction. Denialism is generally defined as the rejection of propositions on which a scientific consensus or widely-accepted historical evidence exists. That HIV causes AIDS is agreed by an overwhelming scientific consensus, which has been reinforced by the success of HIV-specific medication in treating AIDS. The position that "no one has ever proved that HIV causes AIDS" is denialism, and is in fact the position espoused by the majority of those described (by reliable sources) as AIDS denialists. MastCell ^Talk 17:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(another edit conflict) This discussion continues, in part, on the Category_talk:AIDS reappraisal page. Antelan^talk 17:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mullis's stance that "no one has ever proved that HIV causes AIDS" is simply false in the eyes of just about everyone who has seriously studied the subject. It's a political position, not a scientific one. Antelan^talk 17:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And in tennis, that's called, point, set, match. Again, reappraisal appears to be scientific, but each one of these individuals are not using science. Therefore, there is no movement afoot to reappraise AIDS, just to deny it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mullis isn't making a political point, he's making a meta-scientific point, or a point about the methodology of science. Consensus is not science. Consensus is politics. I believe that HIV causes AIDS, and I believe it primarily because of the existence of a scientific consensus, however — and this is a crucial point — my belief is not scientific. A consensus among scientists is not, in and of itself, science. That's all Mullis (and any other genuine skeptic) is saying. It's possible to believe something, and for that something to actually be true, without it being scientifically proven. That's all Mullis is saying, that the standards of proof have not been met (or at least, that they were not met at the time he made those statements.) Yes, some people will twist those statements to question whether those facts are actually facts, but that's not how they were meant and it doesn't accurately represent the position of some of these dissidents/skeptics/whatever. --Sapphic (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And the activity of denying the scientific consensus is called "denialism" in the reliable sources. When denialists lose the battles at their own level (i.e., fail to convince the majority that they are right), they commonly raise their appeals to the next level, claiming that there is a problem with scientific consensus. You are imputing that Mullis is challenging the scientific method, which is a broader reading of his statement denying that HIV causes AIDS than I have seen before. Be that as it may, it is classical denialism. A fuller quote of Mullis's statement is "No one has ever proved that HIV causes AIDS. We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV." This was published in 1997, meaning that the book was written after the introduction of antiretrovirals but before HAART. Antelan^talk 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's inaccurate to suggest that Mullis' innocent quest for better scientific methodology has been "twisted" by the sneaky AIDS denialists. The man wrote a foreword for Peter Duesberg's book, amplifying on Duesberg's views - presumably he did so voluntarily. If there is any evidence anywhere that Mullis has since changed his mind, then we should note that and perhaps he shouldn't be in this category. I am unaware of any such evidence. MastCell ^Talk 18:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Mullis' quote: "No one has ever proved that HIV causes AIDS. We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV." Please read that carefully. It's a statement about the standards of scientific proof and of the public's tendency to accept consensus views rather than demand rigorous scientific proof. He made similar statements about Global Warming and other issues, much as Michael Crichton has — however, unlike Crichton, Mullis has never (to my knowledge) supported the non-mainstream view. I am also irritated at the lack of funding for research into alternate theories on AIDS, not because I think the mainstream view is wrong, but because I think that the standards for scientific proof should be set very high, to benefit science as a whole. I realize it's a tough position to take because it's so easily co-opted by the anti-science crowd, but there is a genuine difference between constructive criticism and the non-constructive kind, and people like Mullis fall into the former category. Supporting Duesberg (in principle) in his search for an alternate cause of AIDS is a far cry from supporting Duesberg's unproven theories. A vital part of the scientific method is to question the things we think we know, and to constantly re-question them whenever a new approach presents itself. Scientists still perform tests of relativity, for example, even if just to re-confirm the standard theory. That's important, and valuable. --Sapphic (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm - there's no such thing as "scientific proof". Saying "no one ever proved HIV causes AIDS" is both true and trivial. Guettarda (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get too hung up on terminology. Whatever you want to call the state of being sufficiently demonstrated through experiment, that's what we're talking about here. Some people (e.g. Mullis, Crichton, et al.) feel strongly that "consensus" should play no role in determining that. The point has been debated in the philosophy of science since the time of Aristotle (and probably earlier) — how much weight to give to informed opinion. The (relatively) recent emphasis on peer-review is one aspect of this, and to some degree represents an opposing view to that held by people like Mullis (and Popper, for that matter.) I had thought that Mullis drew the line there, and was taking more of an agnostic/devil's advocate position with regards to "alternate" theories like Duesberg's, but it appears I may have been wrong on that point (though I swear I remember reading a quote where Mullis explicitly says that he thinks HIV "most likely" causes AIDS, and since his view has changed over the years I'm going to keep looking) — but that doesn't mean that such a position isn't held by other people. The real question (which I accept the burden of demonstrating) is whether there are in fact any (notable) other people who in fact hold that position, and would thus populate the category. --Sapphic (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually terminology is important. It's a common tactic to say "there's no proof", knowing full well that the topic isn't amenable to "proof" (and it always gives you the option of shifting the goalposts). People like Crichton who say consensus has "no role" are also playing word games. But I agree with the question about populating the cat - are there people who belong in this cat and not the other one? As for renaming versus just creating another cat - it's just procedural. The discussion that needs to happen is happening here, and this isn't a topic that needs admin tools (and if it is, there are enough people here with admin tools to do what needs doing). Guettarda (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I brought up moving the article because User:Antelan pointed out (in the section below) that this discussion will be deleted if the category is. I guess it could just be moved too, but since as you pointed out it's all just procedural, it probably would have been better to have moved the page in the first place rather than create a new one and depopulate this one (which is what happened.) Anyway, it's all been done already, so I guess we should just make sure to archive this discussion if the need arises. --Sapphic (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to address your actual point! :) I don't think Crichton is playing word games, I think he genuinely believes that consensus should play no role in science. Clearly that's a bit of an extreme position, and not very realistic for a practicing scientist, but it is what it is. He's not playing word games, he's just wrong (though not by much, in my opinion.) --Sapphic (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Title

It seems that some editors are trying to rename all instances of "AIDS reappraisal" to some form of "AIDS denialism" everywhere they can, which is not quite right. The latter term should be reserved for people who actually deny the existence of AIDS, and the former should include people who simply disagree with the cause or with other aspects of prevailing wisdom on AIDS. Not everyone calling for reappraisal is a denialist Mind you, I think those people are all still wrong (except maybe some of the people who restrict themselves to criticizing methodology without putting forth alternate theories, since it's less clear what they could be wrong about) but I don't think it serves any useful purpose to mischaracterize their positions. --Sapphic (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"AIDS denialism" generally includes both people who deny the existence of HIV (a small group even among denialists) and those who believe that HIV exists but deny that it is the cause of AIDS. The majority of denialists, including such prominent representatives as Peter Duesberg, subscribe to the latter view. "AIDS dissident" and "AIDS reappraisal" are terms self-applied by both groups of people, and we should note this self-application. However, since reliable independent sources nearly universally use "AIDS denialis[m/t]" to refer to both groups, it is reasonable that we follow suit. That's my opinion, anyhow. MastCell ^Talk 17:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) AIDS denialism is not a term for people who deny the existence of AIDS; in fact, I don't know of anyone who denies the existence of AIDS. AIDS denialism = denying the overwhelming scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS. This is the term that is used in the real world. Antelan^talk 17:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Side note: some denialist groups do indeed argue that HIV is non-existent. The Perth Group, led by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, is the most prominent representative of this view (see [1]). Duesberg, as an actual virologist, agrees that HIV undoubtedly exists - he just thinks it's harmless. Interestingly, a AIDS-denialist group once offered a monetary prize to anyone who could "prove" that HIV exists (using their unsurprisingly ridiculous criteria). Duesberg then applied for the prize money, stating that HIV quite obviously exists. A bit of an internecine dispute. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Duesberg denies the existence of AIDS, in the case of AIDS in Africa. Even accepting the broader definition of questioning the link between HIV and AIDS (which I don't think should be called "AIDS denialism") there are some cases (Mullis in particular) where even this definition doesn't apply. Mullis' position is closer to that of Michael Crichton, in that both bemoan the lack of rigor in much contemporary scientific publication and research. When Mullis argues that the link between HIV and AIDS hasn't been proven, the emphasis should be put on the proof part, not on the link. Mullis does, in fact, believe that HIV causes AIDS — he just thinks the link needs to be more rigorously demonstrated, to meet the standards of genuine science. I don't think it does anybody any good to lump him in with the denialists. I know that there are other such cases, and though perhaps many of the people previously listed in Category:AIDS dissidents should really have been in Category:AIDS denialists, I still think we need both categories. I'm actually quite befuddled that it's the proponents of the mainstream view that are pushing for merging the categories, since that just lets the denialists claim people like Mullis as one of their own, by failing to draw the proper distinctions between his view and theirs. --Sapphic (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This raises two points that I would like to respond to. The first regards the statement, "I'm actually quite befuddled that it's the proponents of the mainstream view that are pushing for merging the categories, since that just lets the denialists claim people like Mullis as one of their own..." We are simply pointing out that the scientific and mainstream press use the term "AIDS denialism" to describe this movement. If the press used a different term, I'd be arguing for the use of that term, even if it were "AIDS reappraisal". I don't personally care what the term is, but I do care that we report it accurately. The second point regards the statement, "Even accepting the broader definition of questioning the link between HIV and AIDS (which I don't think should be called "AIDS denialism")..." The popular and scientific press have latched on to "AIDS denialism" to describe exactly what you feel shouldn't be described with that term. Our personal feelings may drive which side of the argument we're on here, but they can't change the positions taken up by our reliable sources. Antelan^talk 18:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this line of argumentation does not strike me as a valid reason not to delete this empty category. This discussion should be moved elsewhere, because it will be deleted when the category is removed. Antelan^talk 18:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sapphic, I agree with setting up the Category:AIDS denialists. Denialism should be groups and so-called scientific theories. Denialists could include the individuals. I'm all right with that.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I only think that Category:AIDS denialists should be set up if we also keep Category:AIDS dissidents (or perhaps Category:AIDS skeptics or something similar) so we can draw a distinction. I have no problem labeling the nut-jobs as nut-jobs, but I have a big problem with labeling the "devil's advocate" type positions as nut-jobs. There's nothing wrong with being critical of science for the sake of improving science (as opposed to being critical of science to support an unscientific position.) --Sapphic (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And which one of us is qualified to make that distinction? Using which criteria? Antelan^talk 18:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd hope that we would be qualified to make that distinction via group discussion, but I suppose if a group of people who all hold (some form of) the mainstream view (which I think everyone currently in this discussion does) can't quite agree, then things will get even messier once the actual nut-jobs get involved. It seems quite clear to me, upon reading their positions, who is making a point about AIDS and who is making a point about the science surrounding AIDS, but maybe that's just me. What are your worries here? That the denialists will try to put everybody into the "dissident/skeptic" category? We could just make it very explicit that the people in that category don't question the cause of AIDS, merely the scientific research into the cause. That would mean more work in policing that category, but (hopefully) less work in fighting the "we have a nobel-prize-winner on our side" people who wrongly claim Mullis (and others) as one of their own. What are some other concerns? --Sapphic (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the only reasonable way to avoid problems here is to focus on how independent, reliable sources have characterized these positions, rather than substitute the views of a handful of editors, whatever their personal opinions. Again, I'm not aware of independent, reliable sources drawing a distinction between "dissidents", "skeptics", and "denialists", though many sources do note the heterogeneity of denialist positions. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The AIDS denialists, as of Mullis's most recent writings on the subject, do have a Nobel laureate on their side. So what? I'm not out to discredit them. I'm out to portray them in good agreement with the sources. Antelan^talk 18:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't. Please provide even a single reference where Mullis denies that HIV causes AIDS. I'll try to find some where he explicitly states that he personally believes the mainstream view, but thinks it hasn't been scientifically proven. --Sapphic (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a start.. it's written by somebody who is trying to portray Mullis as a denialist, but again if you read his actual words you can see he's not:

While many people, even within the ranks of the HIV dissidents, have of late tried to distance themselves from the controversial Duesberg, Mullis defends him passionately and seems genuinely concerned about his fate. "I was trying to stress this point to the ABC people" he says, "that Peter has been abused seriously by the scientific establishment, to the point where he can't even do any research. Not only that, but his whole life is pretty much in disarray because of this, and it is only because he has refused to compromise his scientific moral standards. There ought to be some goddamn private foundation in the country, that would say, 'Well, we'll move in where the NIH [National Institutes of Health] dropped off. We'll take care of it. You just keep right on saying what you're saying, Peter. We think you're an asshole, and we think you are wrong, but you're the only dissenter, and we need one, because it's science, it's not religion.' And that was one of the reasons why I cooperated with ABC."

Mullis' point is that science needs dissenters to function properly, and even states that Duesberg is wrong (through a hypothetical third-party statement, but still..) --Sapphic (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble finding actual quotes (as opposed to third-party paraphrasings) but this page has a lot more information than I've found elsewhere, and if accurate, pretty much refutes what I've been arguing about Mullis. Apparently he does (or did) argue that HIV isn't the cause of AIDS. So unless there are other people who do hold the position I thought Mullis held, Category:AIDS dissidents would indeed be empty and thus should be renamed (not deleted.) I'll look more into this later, but the real world calls so I'm through for the moment.. --Sapphic (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of additional items that might be relevant. This New York Times article alludes to the situation, saying that Mullis "followed Duesberg's lead" by "expressing doubts about HIV as the cause of AIDS"... As well, in Mullis' book .. the Mind Fields, he describes AZT as poison and supports the "immune overload" hypothesis promoted by Duesberg (to wit, that gay men are promiscuous, so it's no surprise when their immune system collapses and they develop PCP or Kaposi's). As a disclaimer, I've not read the book myself - these excerpts are from aidstruth.org, a site dedicated to debunking AIDS denialism, so take them with an appropriate amount of salt. MastCell ^Talk 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read the book, and that wasn't my recollection of it, though it's been a while. I don't put much faith in paraphrases of his speeches or writing, since it's (clearly) very easy to misinterpret a principled agnosticism as holding the opposing view. People (like Mullis) sometimes say some pretty strange things to make a point, and unfortunately the point sometimes gets overlooked in favor of the strange choice of example. My own opinion is that there hasn't been enough basic research done to demonstrate that HIV causes AIDS, if you held AIDS research to the same standards as (say) physics research. Now, given that people die from AIDS every day, the question is whether it's okay to lower those standards just a little bit, in the interests of speeding up progress. So what if it's only 98% likely (in some hypothetical scale) that HIV causes AIDS? Should we really divert funds from more practical research, just to eliminate outlier possibilities that are unlikely to pan out and may be difficult and expensive to "rigorously" disprove, anyway? I think I lean in the direction of using consensus as a short-cut for areas of medicine or perhaps global warming (where there is an urgency to act more quickly to save lives) but I do recognize the danger of setting a precedent and allowing standards to slip elsewhere. Some people (like Mullis or Crichton) feel more strongly that we shouldn't rely on consensus ever in scientific matters, because of the corrosive effects on science as a whole. --Sapphic (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about physics, but by the standards of medical science the link between HIV and AIDS is ironclad. The evidence is much better than 98%, and much stronger than the evidence that - for instance - hepatitis C virus causes hepatitis, or that smoking causes lung cancer. It's not a matter of "consensus" being imposed to shut out "dissent". Scientific consensus develops organically - the thousands of researchers in the famously fractious AIDS community have looked at the data, and all have been convinced by it. They've moved on, long ago, to developing things like protease inhibitors and HAART, whose effectiveness confirms the role of HIV in AIDS. Science thrives on informed dissent and discussion, but this is different - it's an increasingly small handful of people unwilling to admit they've been proven wrong. Duesberg's scientific arguments are generally considered laughable - for example, his explanation for AIDS associated with blood transfusions. Obstinacy in the face of overwhelming evidence doesn't advance the scientific method. It impairs it, by generating FUD among the less informed or less scientifically literate. MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles on the link between AIDS and HIV (at least in the last 10 years), there is no credible evidence of an alternative to the theory that HIV causes AIDS. And science is not a dictatorship. If someone observes something that might indicate HIV is not the causative virus for AIDS, that individual would push the research until it was peer reviewed, confirmed at other sites, and then become the reigning theory. Everyone makes points that this happens all the time. It doesn't. It's rare, because science works not to a consensus but to confirmation. And the scientific method requires a new idea to be predicted then tested then confirmed. HIV causes AIDS. That has been confirmed over and over. Alternative theories must first removed that cause, then confirm the new theory. No one has even come close to confirming that HIV is not the causative agent of AIDS. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do I feel like I've wandered into a creation v evolution debate? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably because there are other ex-philosophy majors like me that you've encountered who argue the same way about those topics? :) Fortunately I think we all pretty much agree on the facts here, we just have some disagreements about how to apply the labels. Since I seem to be springing to the defense of.. well.. nobody (anyone else out there care about drawing a distinction between dissidents/skeptics and denialists?) and since I really have better things to do besides be a martyr, I'll probably just register my opinion at the CfD and let this category be deleted. --Sapphic (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was getting flashbacks to Cortonin (talk · contribs) and JonGwynne (talk · contribs)and bad old days of the climate wars, especially seeing Crichton's name :) Guettarda (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Crichton's assertion that consensus doesn't matter is either silly or denialist. Scientific consensus isn't something that's worked out ("toe the party line or else!") - it's something organic. If the bulk of workers are convinced that the evidence exists, then they will accept it. And broadly speaking, science rewards dissent - if you have a revolutionary idea, and you gather supporting data, people will be interested. If anything new ideas have a tendency to attract too much support simply because they're new and exciting, and they offer people a chance to make their name.

Then you have people who believe they are right, despite all evidence to the contrary. Once in a while, it turns out that they are right, but most of the time they are cranks. Sure, they complain about not getting NIH funding - but very few people actually get NIH funding, and in order to do so you need to have both good ideas and good data. Complaining about being shut out of the establishment simply because the big agencies don't fund you isn't really a valid excuse. If you are doing good work otherwise, you can always piggyback some pet projects off other funding - a borrow bit of equipment here, an undergrad volunteer there. But if you abandon all other work because you have become consumed by your fringe idea, then you're probably a crank.

Science rewards dissent far more than it stifles it. Guettarda (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoa

I've rejected the speedy tag, even though this is empty--bring this to WP:CFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience: Warranted for AIDS Denialism?

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this category, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. How about two leading experts in the field writing in the New York Times? How about an article in the world's leading scientific journal, written by the President of the South African Medical Research Council (PMID 10841733)? Did you look for sources? I'm curious because it took me about 2 minutes to find these, using popular and freely available Internet search engines. There are more.

Let me give you some unsolicited advice: if you're on this crusade for the betterment of the encyclopedia, then take 5 minutes and look for sources yourself. If you don't find any, ask for help. People will cut you quite a bit of slack if you give them even the smallest reason to think that you might be in this to make the encyclopedia better. They tend to be less patient with attempts to turn Wikipedia into a battlefront in a personal crusade against the term "pseudoscience". MastCell ^Talk 05:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The first article says "The AIDS denialists use pseudoscience and non-peer-reviewed Internet postings to bolster their false claims about H.I.V." but doesn't explain precisely how this is done. That there is a movement to deny the reality if AIDS is obvious and horrific. That AIDS Denialism is pseudoscience doesn't seem substantiated by this article, only one of whose authors is a scientist.

The second article i couldn't get. That there is a perception that AIDS Denialism, per se, is pseudoscience seems obvious via any Google search, but it is not clear to me that it does more than attempt to use pseudoscience for its purpose (compare 'Holocaust Denial', which is correspondingly false, but does not in fact pretend to be scientific in its evaluations or pretend to use science to bolster its claims). The term 'denialism' is a peculiar one, implying an ideology. What scientific claims are being made in association with these denials? The argument here isn't whether AIDS denials are well-founded. That they aren't is clear. The issue is whether this 'Denialism' is itself pseudoscience or merely utilizes some kind of pseudoscience (and if so, what, etc.).-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is the AIDS page for 'Origins Opposed to Scientific Consensus'. I gather that this is sociopolitically-charged and bolstered on both sides of the issue. I also understand that, in general, the scientific establishment is coming down on just one side of this argument, and that those opposing it are not as likely to take up scientific banners. I haven't yet understood what pseudoscientific claims they are making, or what supports they are faking for their contentions.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, many aspects of Holocaust denial are described as pseudoscientific, or more precisely, pseudohistorical. AIDS denialism makes a series of scientific claims - for example, that HIV has never been properly isolated, or that epidemiological surveillance criteria are circular or misinterpreted, or that immune deficiency in gay men is due to amyl nitrate use or sexual promiscuity, or that antibodies to HIV must provide protection against the disease, or that HIV testing through Western blot and ELISA are inaccurate. The language in which these claims are made is scientific, but they are unsupported or directly contradicted by actual scientific data and they do not adhere to the scientific method. Hence, pseudoscience. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Beautifully argued. Thank you for your time and explication.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - sorry for being a bit snippy above. MastCell ^Talk 08:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I can see the serious issues here and will proceed to the Talk page of the subject in question. What we're really looking for is a cite from a general source like an encyclopedia or from a board of scientists indicating that the thing is pseudoscience. I have found a few that aren't of this calibre for AIDS denialism and have noticed what you have argued above is occurring, but i'm still looking for cites of this type to support leaving the Pseudoscience category tag and will take my time before attempting to remove it, as this seems too important an issue to obscure without very good reason.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)