36 Academic Snobbery and the Journal of Scientific Exploration (Podcast)

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

Perhaps my irony-meter is broken. Are you serious about these being your favorites? Do you really think that either of these have made any contribution to HIV/AIDS or geology?

Wasn't trying to be ironic... I just remember that these two articles really grabbed my attention.

Neither one of these topics interest me enough to really dig in there and find out what's going on; on the other hand, I just google-ed "Henry Bauer fraud", and "refute Henry Bauer"... not much comes up.

Again, I'm not convinced he's right, but I sure would like to hear the counter-arguments to his claims.

Just ran across this: HIV/AIDS Skepticism

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

Wasn't trying to be ironic... I just remember that these two articles really grabbed my attention.

Neither one of these topics interest me enough to really dig in there and find out what's going on; on the other hand, I just google-ed "Henry Bauer fraud", and "refute Henry Bauer"... not much comes up.

Again, I'm not convinced he's right, but I sure would like to hear the counter-arguments to his claims.

Just ran across this: HIV/AIDS Skepticism

I've been following the arguments from HIV denialists for over 10 years. Bauer just rehashes the same arguments from Duesberg and other HIV denialists that have been refuted for years. Most of the arguments that he uses concern epidemiology - a field in which he admits (even boasts) that he has no qualifications. He has some weird ideas about how a "real" STD should behave. It's a bit like the creationists arguments involving strawman versions of evolution - they only reveal the ignorance of the creationists.

HIV exists. There are electron-micrographs of HIV. The genome of HIV has been sequenced. The 3D structure of HIV proteins has been elucidated with x-ray crystallography.

Animal models demonstrate that other primate immunodeficiency viruses reproducibly cause AIDS in rhesus macaques.

Drugs that specifically inhibit HIV enzymes have dramatically extended the lives of people infected with HIV.

To currently deny that HIV causes AIDS or even that HIV exists is amazingly stupid.

You (well not you but HIV researchers) can order infectious HIV from AIDS reagent programs.

Compare the mountains of evidence that shows that HIV exists and causes AIDS with the evidence that "psi" (whatever that is) exists.

I suggest that the only comparison with psi is that both psi proponents and HIV skeptics complain that the "orthodoxy" is suppressing their alternative explanations and that the orthodox paradigm is about to fail. For about two decades the HIV denilaists have been claiming that the orthodox paradigm is about to fail. Instead the science has become stronger and stronger. More importantly the science that has been learnt from HIV has had major impacts in many other fields.

The second one about the guy who is challenging plate tectonics is ridiculous. You'll notice that he isn't actually proposing an alternative theory. He's just listing "anomalies" in the current theory and cherry picking stuff from the literature. He's like Intelligent Design proponents whose main activity is attacking evolution rather than finding positive evidence for their theory. If you google Pratt's name you'll find out that he has no relevant qualifications and he has wacky theosophical beliefs about Lemuria, Atlantis and other lost continents.

In short - you are easily fooled by pseudoscience

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

In short - you are easily fooled by pseudoscience

Chris,

I think that is deeply unfair to Alex - he just referenced them as alternative controversies, without claiming to have researched them or endorsing them. Whatever the rights or wrongs of those two cases, there is a real problem here in that science is so large and bureaucratic that it almost has to jump off the fence on issues far too quickly.

Perhaps the best example is 'cold fusion'. When this was announced by Fleishman and Pons, it initiated a frenzy of work to reproduce it. You had researchers at Culham (where hot fusion research is done at great expense) rushing off electrochemistry experiments (probably outside their field) to prove that the effect was false. Strangely, however, even after all these years there is extreme uncertainty as to what is going on in those palladium electrodes. See for example Brian Josephson's site or various other articles for more details. In particular, nuclear breakdown products have been found, coming from the palladium. All these years later, active research is going on in CF!

Wouldn't it have been better from all perspectives to treat the original announcement with a bit more cautious respect - rather than rushing to endorse/refute their results.

The analogy with Ψ is interesting. There are clearly many laboratories that would be equipped to repeat Dean Radin's presentiment experiment (indeed he claims some have, but are reluctant to publish positive results). Unfortunately there is a perceived fear that publishing any positive results would bring down a storm of 'poor experimental design' criticism from people who simply can't accept uncomfortable results.

The fear of being tarred with the Ψ-slur is IMHO very real. I have a website and consultancy related to a certain aspect of mathematical software, and there is absolutely no way I would even mention Ψ on there!

David

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

I've been following the arguments from HIV denialists for over 10 years. Bauer just rehashes the same arguments from Duesberg and other HIV denialists that have been refuted for years. Most of the arguments that he uses concern epidemiology - a field in which he admits (even boasts) that he has no qualifications. He has some weird ideas about how a "real" STD should behave. It's a bit like the creationists arguments involving strawman versions of evolution - they only reveal the ignorance of the creationists.

HIV exists. There are electron-micrographs of HIV. The genome of HIV has been sequenced. The 3D structure of HIV proteins has been elucidated with x-ray crystallography.

Animal models demonstrate that other primate immunodeficiency viruses reproducibly cause AIDS in rhesus macaques.

Drugs that specifically inhibit HIV enzymes have dramatically extended the lives of people infected with HIV.

To currently deny that HIV causes AIDS or even that HIV exists is amazingly stupid.

You (well not you but HIV researchers) can order infectious HIV from AIDS reagent programs.

Compare the mountains of evidence that shows that HIV exists and causes AIDS with the evidence that "psi" (whatever that is) exists.

I suggest that the only comparison with psi is that both psi proponents and HIV skeptics complain that the "orthodoxy" is suppressing their alternative explanations and that the orthodox paradigm is about to fail. For about two decades the HIV denilaists have been claiming that the orthodox paradigm is about to fail. Instead the science has become stronger and stronger. More importantly the science that has been learnt from HIV has had major impacts in many other fields.

The second one about the guy who is challenging plate tectonics is ridiculous. You'll notice that he isn't actually proposing an alternative theory. He's just listing "anomalies" in the current theory and cherry picking stuff from the literature. He's like Intelligent Design proponents whose main activity is attacking evolution rather than finding positive evidence for their theory. If you google Pratt's name you'll find out that he has no relevant qualifications and he has wacky theosophical beliefs about Lemuria, Atlantis and other lost continents.

In short - you are easily fooled by pseudoscience

Good arguments, and excellent stuff on "HIV proteins has been elucidated with x-ray crystallography", I don't really know what that means, but the general gist of it sounds good.

What do you make of Bauer's claims on the epidemiology of HIV/AIDS?

If I stepped into it here by not recognizing pseudoscientific claims, then my bad, and I will correct course when presented with the right data...

So, let's see you come clean, Chris:
1. How about admitting that Wiseman's "debunking" of Sheldrake has been completely discredited -- regardless of whether you agree with Shledrake's findings.
2. While you're at it, how about calling out Steve Novella for mis-representing Sheldrake's quote (in Skpetiko episode 35).

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

I suggest that the only comparison with psi is that both psi proponents and HIV skeptics complain that the "orthodoxy" is suppressing their alternative explanations and that the orthodox paradigm is about to fail.

I don't know about HIV, you may be right about that. However, I think you're making a false analogy between psi researchers and HIV skeptics. In the case of parapsychology, it's the "outsiders" that are doing the research and the mainstream scientists that are rejecting it, whereas in the case of HIV research, it's the mainstream scientists that are doing the research, and the "outsiders" that are rejecting it. HIV skeptics, creationists and other "doubters" are thus very different from parapsychologists, in that their focus is not on conducting experiments, but rather rejecting specific theories. Parapsychologists don't reject mainstream fields of research and theories. They may have different interpretations of some of them (QM, for instance), but that doesn't mean they deny the experimental results that support the truth of the observations that have been done so far. Individual parapsychologists may do, but that's irrelevant since the field of parapsychology as such has nothing to do with those theories (evolution, for instance), just as QM has nothing to do with, say, botanics.

[Open Mind]

Chris, is Dr Steven Novella a 'Psi Denier'?

It is seems to me a double standard that followers of scientism (i.e. defending a faith in the most popular scientific viewpoint) call themselves 'skeptics' when casting media doubt upon scientists who have done psi research, yet call others 'deniers' who cast media doubt upon scientists who have done HIV/AIDS research.

Compare these two statements .....

By Dr Steven Novella

But it is misleading for the HIV denial movement to suggest that there is any real doubt about the cause of AIDS.

Pushing Back the Goalpost

Of all the characteristics of deniers, repeatedly nudging back the goalpost—or the threshold of evidence required for acceptance of a theory—is often the most telling. The strategy behind goalpost-moving is simple: always demand more evidence than can currently be provided. If the evidence is then provided at a later date, simply change the demand to require even more evidence, or refuse to accept the kind of evidence that is being offered.

So a sign of 'denial' is moving the goalposts? I agree it is.

By Professor Marcello Truzzi
' .... As proponents of anomalies produce stronger evidence, critics have sometimes moved the goal posts further away. This is especially clear in the case of parapsychology. To convince scientists of what had been merely been supported by widespread but weak anecdotal evidence, parapsychologists moved psychical research into the laboratory. When experimental results were presented, designs were criticized. When protocols were improved, a "fraud proof" or "critical experiment" was demanded. When those were put forward, replications were demanded. When those were produced, critics argued that new forms of error might be the cause (such as the "file drawer" error that could result from unpublished negative studies). When meta-analyses were presented to counter that issue, these were discounted as controversial, and ESP was reduced to being some present but unspecified "error some place" in the form of what Ray Hyman called the "dirty test tube argument" (claiming dirt was in the tube making the seeming psi result a mere artifact). And in one instance, when the scoffer found no counter-explanations, he described the result as a "mere anomaly" not to be taken seriously so just belonging on a puzzle page. The goal posts have now been moved into a zone where some critics hold unfalsifiable positions..... '

Oh my goodness, Dr Steven Novella has the symptoms of a Psi Denier!

Chris, incidentally I know very little about HIV causes AIDS debate (I'm not too interested ploughing through the debate either, although I have sympathy for anyone ill with any disease) Sp perhaps you can tell me, why do opponents call it 'HIV denial'? I had the impression most were not denying HIV exists or the symptoms of AIDS kills people, I think they were disputing whether HIV is the cause (or sole cause) or AIDS like death? Correct me if I am wrong.

[David Bailey]

Open Mind,

From reading the link about HIV, I also got the impression that a major part of the claim was that the HIV TEST can respond to other non-specific problems. I wonder if there is any backup check performed when people are found to be positive.

Like others, I don't really want us to get sidetracked into this debate, which I don't feel qualified to discuss.

David

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Chris, is Dr Steven Novella a 'Psi Denier'?

It is seems to me a double standard that followers of scientism (i.e. defending a faith in the most popular scientific viewpoint) call themselves 'skeptics' when casting media doubt upon scientists who have done psi research, yet call others 'deniers' who cast media doubt upon scientists who have done HIV/AIDS research.

Compare these two statements .....



So a sign of 'denial' is moving the goalposts? I agree it is.



Oh my goodness, Dr Steven Novella has the symptoms of a Psi Denier!

Chris, incidentally I know very little about HIV causes AIDS debate (I'm not too interested ploughing through the debate either, although I have sympathy for anyone ill with any disease) Sp perhaps you can tell me, why do opponents call it 'HIV denial'? I had the impression most were not denying HIV exists or the symptoms of AIDS kills people, I think they were disputing whether HIV is the cause (or sole cause) or AIDS like death? Correct me if I am wrong.

yea, these are all good points. I would add that the part I found intriguing was Bauer's point of the spread of HIV/AID not fitting the pattern of an infectious disease. I never looked very far into it, but the logic was interesting and I was surprised there wasn't a simple explanation.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

yea, these are all good points. I would add that the part I found intriguing was Bauer's point of the spread of HIV/AID not fitting the pattern of an infectious disease. I never looked very far into it, but the logic was interesting and I was surprised there wasn't a simple explanation.

Of course, it is a very unusual infectious disease with such a long incubation period.

The part of his paper that I thought was intriguing was where he pointed out that HIV rates seem to have fallen - yet how is this possible, since with the exception of those who have died, everyone who becomes positive is supposed to remain positive.

It would be nice in general if science were more ready to just say, "Well here is the most popular theory of X, but here are some facts that don't seem to fit". In some areas it seems to work like that, but certainly not in others! Maybe part of the problem is the media - some researchers fear that a reporter will take one piece of anomalous information and blow it into a big story and distort the true picture.

David

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Of course, it is a very unusual infectious disease with such a long incubation period.

The part of his paper that I thought was intriguing was where he pointed out that HIV rates seem to have fallen - yet how is this possible, since with the exception of those who have died, everyone who becomes positive is supposed to remain positive.

It would be nice in general if science were more ready to just say, "Well here is the most popular theory of X, but here are some facts that don't seem to fit". In some areas it seems to work like that, but certainly not in others! Maybe part of the problem is the media - some researchers fear that a reporter will take one piece of anomalous information and blow it into a big story and distort the true picture.

David

Agreed, but then maybe this situation is better than it ever has been. The amount of information on the net and intrinsic raking of google searches has changed everything.