|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Our very own wwh exposed a gap in our vocabulary when he explained that a writer ridiculing a "debunker of the Holocaust" was paying the psychopath an unintended compliment. A debunker is someone who exposes a patent falsehood, such as a miraculous drug. Someone who circulates "bunk" is not a "debunker" but a perpetrator of bunk. Such a person might be called a bunkerist or a Holocaust bunkerator, but we should not dignify their bunk with the laudatory term "debunker". Of course, wwh's insight exposes a larger weakness in our vocabulary. We have a word to describe words which contradict one another, namely, "oxymoron". And "irony" describes ideas or images which jar with one another, provoking critical thought. But how about a phrase like "debunker of the Holocaust"? How do we describe such a phrase? It is not, strictly speaking, an oxymoron. It is not an explicit contradiction in terms like "humble politician" or "noble greed". It actually postulates an alternative reality as though one is proclaiming that politicians and greed don't exist at all. And it is more unequivocal than "irony". For instance, "irony" can point to a deeper truth, one which is counter-indicated on the surface. A phrase like "debunker of the Holocaust" is the very opposite of this. It appears to be true on the surface but it is utterly false underneath. Do we have a word which describes a phrase like this? Prevarication?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear plutarch: When we are small, we need to be able to feel that our parents are very powerful, and able to protect us. As we get into adolescence, and begin to feel less dependent on our parents and other power figures, many of us go too far and overestimate our capabilities, and reject any and all authority, reject all the values of the older generation. We may become NeoNazis to emphasize the width of the gulf between our position and that of the conventional authorities. We can become anarchists to emphasize our refusal to accept any higher authority.
Fortunately most adolescents don't go this far. Mark Twain said that when he was fifteen, his old man was so stupid he hardly stand to be in the same house with him. But when he was twenty, he was amazed to see how much the old guy had learned in five years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Fortunately, most adolescents don't go this far.
If only neo-Nazism were an aberration of adolescence, wwh. Unfortunately, for some, it's a life-long career. I think you got closer to the truth when you explained that the profile of a typical neo-Nazi includes "extreme survivalist" because of the paranoia which distorts the neo-Nazi's perception of reality. The flip side of "white supremist" delusions of grandeur is the persecution complex, the fear that everyone else is 'out to get us'. These symptoms are all of a piece, don't you think, wwh? Taken together, they define both the neo-Nazi personality and the disease which afflicts this personality. That's why the writer's adumbration of the characteristics of a neo-Nazi is so revealing (at least pour moi).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393 |
This discussion of 'debunk' reminded me of the confusion between 'refute' and 'rebut'. These are both semi-technical terms, so there is some authority for saying there are right and wrong meanings of them.
If someone accuses you of purloining the pewter charger, you can deny, rebut, or refute the accusation, but these three are different. Merely to say 'I deny that' does thereby deny it. 'Deny' is wholly performative.
You can't rebut it by saying 'I rebut that', since rebuttal is the presentation of evidence: but evidence, not proof. If you present some evidence to support your denial, you have thereby rebutted it, even if the evidence is unconvincing or untrue.
Finally, refutation is successful denial. A rebuttal, or other attempt at refutation, fails to refute something unless the evidence is true (and, I think, convincing).
If you assert that A refutes B, you are asserting (inter alia) that B is false, not just that A makes that claim. (And A may be a person or their text.)
Debunking is like this: to assert that A debunks B is to assert (inter alia) that B is bunk.
What led me to this was noticing that some adverbs are ruled out by virtue of this secondary assertion. Or rather, the person A who asserts 'B' can use them, but the person C who reports this assertion can't. If A thinks the Moon Landings are bunk and fills a book with evidence they find convincing, they can say 'In my book I debunk the Moon Landings', but I can't echo them: I have to add a qualifier like 'claims to' or 'attempts to'.
But A's usage is a correct and reasonable use of the word 'debunk', in their own mind. They genuinely and sincerely think they have debunked it.
I can report this using 'genuinely' and 'sincerely', but I can't use 'reasonably' or 'correctly'. I recognize that their usage of the word is reasonable or correct, but I can't phrase it as 'A correctly said they debunked the Moon Landings', even if all I want to do is endorse their language as correct, not their facts. The adverb is ambiguous in what it applies to: whereas 'sincerely' would unambiguously refer to A's beliefs.
I was minded to extend our usual grammar along the lines of the technical terms 'rule-utilitarianism' and 'act-utilitarianism'. We could take about usage-correctness and fact-correctness. Then I can with a clear conscience assert that A usage-correctly said they debunked the Moon Landings.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
usage correctness and fact correctness
U have sorted this out very nicely, Nicholas W, by distinguishing between usage correctness and fact correctness.
But, can one "debunk" something which, on the weight of all credible evidence, is self-evidently true, namely, the fact of the Holocaust? I think not. The fact that one is sincere in arguing a case which is patently false does not make the truth "bunk".
Where there is no "bunk", there can be no "debunker".
On the other hand, where the proposition which is challenged is less than patently false, one can claim to "debunk" it by marshalling credible evidence in support of that challenge. In this situation, an etymologist cannot say that the word "debunked" has been misused even if he/she is not persuaded by the challenger's evidence.
Perhaps "debunking the Moon Landing" falls into this category. I really don't know. I haven't taken the time to examine the so-called evidence and I have never questioned the historical record. One would have to go deep into the woodwork to make a case either way. And the witnesses are few, and the scene of their deeds beyond reach ... quite unlike the situation with the Holocaust.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393 |
Sorry, you're missing my point entirely. I can only ask you to read it again. None of the following is a modification of what I said above.
I chose the Moon Landings as something in epistemologically the same situation as the Holocaust, but without the emotional charge, i.e. it is impossible to reasonably doubt them.
But someone certainly can claim that they are bunk. There is no semantic problem with this at all. The person so claiming is factually wrong, and unreasonable, but if they think it's bunk, then the expression 'That is bunk' is a (usage-)correct and reasonable expression of their views when they utter it.
And if I say 'Irving thinks that is bunk' then I am also describing the facts correctly and reasonably.
(Mental verbs like 'think' or 'believe' don't preserve truth across them. If Alice believes Oslo is in Denmark, and Bob says/thinks that Alice believes that, it doesn't entail that Bob says/thinks Oslo is in Denmark.)
Someone can claim to have debunked anything whatever. They have not actually debunked it unless they convincingly establish that it's bunk. But even if they don't establish it, they can make an attempt and claim to have succeeded. This claim might or might not be reasonable, but being reasonable is not inherent in the notion of claiming. I can (and frequently do) claim to be the King of Patagonia.
You can claim to debunk something no matter what your evidence is. You do not succeed in debunking it unless the evidence is compelling.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
you have missed the point entirely
We may have to agree to disagree, Nicholas W. I think I understand your point perfectly, and it is very ably put. But I must stand by my own logic. Where there is no "bunk", there can be no "debunker".
The problem here is that the two words are inextricably connected. One cannot "debunk" something unless it is "bunk". Intention has nothing at all to do with it. "Debunking" is the removing of "bunk". Its like trying to remove salt from rainwater. One cannot desalinate rainwater.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393 |
But you can try to desalinate rainwater if you think it has salt in it!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
I think you guys are arguing from the same side of the fence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
.. Parents find it expedient to misrepresent to their children the facts of life.Particularly in wartime governments find it expedient to deceive the public.Some people become incurably suspicious, and misinterpret events, and believe they detect deceit when there is none. They refuse to accept the best evidence, and construct contorted arguments to support their views.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
Or as somebody famous must have said, "One cannot logically argue someone out of a position that they were not logically argued into in the first place."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear Maxq: " if someone sincerely believes that something
is bunk, and presents evidence (factually valid or otherwise) in support of that belief, that
person can claim to have debunked it, regardless of whether that sincerely held belief is
factually correct or not."
Dear Maxq: no matter how deeply "someone" believes something is "bunk" that does not make it "bunk"
And as plutarch said (I thinK) you can never "debunk" what is not "bunk".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear Max: I like things simple. No matter what contorsions A goes through, no matter how convinced he may be that he has reasons to disbelieve the moon landings, the rest of us know he is full of excrementl He cannot debunk what we know is not bunk.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
since I am convinced that they do not actually believe their own lies.
Dear Max: Many of these idiots believe their erroneous statements enough to die for them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
In other words, you are drawing the distinction between the gentleman whose word accurately describes his view of the world and his actions (regardless of whether that view is correct), and the gentleman who accurately describes the world and his actions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
here's a slightly more tangible example from the field of anthropology: Johanson discovers "Lucy" and debunks the Leakey's view of the evolutionary tree; subsequently the Leakeys debunk Johanson's methods -- wherein lies the bunk? creationists and evolutionists are constantly striving to debunk each other's claims; the fact of the matter is that there is not enough evidence one way or the other to unbunk the dialectic. http://home.mn.rr.com/wwftd/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
I don't believe that's a fact at all.
(For the purposes of this discussion, I assume that creationism refers to "young earth creationism" and not some old earth creationism.)
I think the vast preponderance of evidence points toward evolution. I think the vast majority of scientists consider evolution both the scientific theory with the greatest explanatory power and a collection of facts making some variation of the theory almost inescapable.
Further, I think that evolution, even if it is false, is still science. I think that creationism, even if it is true, is not.
This is not to say that I approve of the ridicule some "defenders of the faith" (Stephen Gould, e.g.) have used against creationists. (I don't recall the exact quote, but my poor memory recalls something like "If 95% of what I say against creationism is ridicule it's only because 95% of it is ridiculous.")
The very first message I ever posted on the net some twenty years ago was on this subject and I've written volumes since. I'm about argued out, but I state my undefended opinion. (Please don't infer anything about my opinions beyond what I've stated, though. I do not, for example, believe it is right or wise to foist evolution onto the children of those who do not approve of it.)
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
here's a slightly more tangible example from the field of anthropology: Johanson discovers
"Lucy" and debunks the Leakey's view of the evolutionary tree; subsequently the Leakeys
debunk Johanson's methods -- wherein lies the bunk?
Dear trsuwm: I am painfully disappointed that you of all board members should use "debunk" as you did in the statement above. The Leakey's are highly regarded scientists and authorities. They may err, but they do not publish "bunk".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
In my haste to state that I disagreed with your assessment of the relative merits evolutionism and creationism, I forgot to mention that I agreed with your general premise and with your specific example with Lucy.
This kind of row is very common in scientific circles and it's pretty typical that the new guys claim they are debunking traditionalists, and that traditionalists claim the new guys' opinions are absurd.
Relativity was derided as jew physics, Copernican theory a heresy, continental drift an absurdity. It seems there's a lot of nasty behavior in legitimate science. That something is wrong does not make it unscientific, nor that it is right that it is.
OTOH, I recall reading somewhere (I don't recall the source) in which two nazi scientists were talking and agreed that even if Einstein was wrong, that he was still one of the greatest mathematicians of the century.
Further, when Einstein expressed incredulity at some conclusions from quantum mechanics, I think it was Dirac who asked Schroedinger whether perhaps Einstein just didn't understand the theory. Schroedinger's response was that he felt there were perhaps a dozen people in the world who understood it and that he was sure Einstein was one of them. (I'm not sure where I read this one either.) My point is that even when there is extreme disagreement between some scientists, they nevertheless acknowledge that their opponent is somehow on the same level as they are.
Maybe one thing that really separates one who is perceived a crackpot from one who is perceived eccentric, but possibly brilliant, is the extent to which he appears to demonstrate that he actually understands the problem space.
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
The Leakey's are highly regarded scientists and authorities. They may err, but they do not publish "bunk".Johanson didn't think so! he thought (or wanted others to believe) that they were bunko artists. QED http://home.mn.rr.com/wwftd/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
ts>the fact of the matter is that there is not enough evidence one way or the other to unbunk the dialectic. ff>I don't believe that's a fact at all. I completely agree that the preponderance of evidence is on your side; but I think that my statement stands. [shrugs] http://home.mn.rr.com/wwftd/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
One can do many things to a manifest truth. One can deny it, defame it, defang it, derail it, degrade it, deride it or destabilize it. But one cannot "debunk" it. That is because the truth is not "bunk". Try as one might, whether sincerely or not, one cannot "debunk" what is not "bunk" to begin with.
One cannot deoxygenate hydrogen (as far as I know) and no effort to do so, however well intentioned, can be described as deoxygenation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
I'm late into this thread, but I have read the posts and I now propose to debunk...???$%&#
Surely, in order to debunk something effectively rather than just getting up on your hind legs and saying "I don't think the Moon landings happened" or "I don't think the Holocaust occurred" you need evidence. In order to consider something thoroughly debunked, that evidence would need to have been absorbed and accepted by the majority of people, i.e. the majority has come around to your way of thinking through logic rather than persuasion.
You can't say that "So-and-so got up last night and debunked <choose your subject>". So-and-so might have attacked whatever it was, but it can't be considered to have been debunked at that point. Simply saying so isn't enough.
On the same basis, you couldn't debunk the idea that God exists unless you can present convincing evidence that no such being does exist. That appears to be unlikely. Debunking the opposite view - that God does exist -suffers similarly. Since theism/atheism is a matter of belief, it is incapable of being debunked. You may convince people, through rhetoric, that God doesn't exist, but you still haven't debunked the idea of God. There's no objective evidence.
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
But can you really debunk or refute a scientific theory...or just revise according to new evidence? Since the evidentiary basis of a theory is necessarily incomplete, thus preventing the theory form being recorded as fact, isn't the process of theory development one of evolutionary revision, rather than one of debunking or refutation and the re-establishment of a "new" theory.
Take the ongoing process of developing a theory on the mobility of the dinosaurs. Years ago it was generally accepted, due to the clues of a few fossil specimens used as a small keyhole of insight into millions of years of history, that dinosuars were slow, plodding, lugubrious beats. One of the heaviest known at the time, Brachiosaurus, was said to have spent 90% of his life ambling in deep lakes to buoy up his tons of weight, munching on aquatic vegetation. But in the 80's a new generation of sceintists began to uncover some fossils that led them to change the theory to a view of dinosaurs as highly mobile, agile, and capable of runing speeds never before considered. Were these scientists debunking or refuting a theory that is still onoging in it's development? Hardly, I think. Simply revising it, according to the evidentiary trail they've been following since the research on this particular aspect of the dinosaurs' life was first theorized.
And, today, after this vision of the dinosaurs' mobility gained precedent to the crescendo of the the running Tyrannosaurus Rex in Jurassic Park, there's suddenly been new evidence presented with the help of computer-technology that, yet again, reshapes the theory of the dinosaurs' mobility (at least, for now, in the case of the Tyrannosaur) into a vision of much less agility and speed capability. But the theory does not actually revert back to the original proposals. And, indeed, the fossil evidence since disovered of many smaller, birdlike predators may still adhere to the scenario of speed and agility in their respective species' case. So are these scientists debunking one another here, or just building their own stepping stones towards a greater ultimate understanding of this developing theory? Ditto anthropaleontology and the humanoid fossils. Are the Leakeys and other scientists (while we all know of the competitive posturing) really working to debunk or refute one another? Or simply working to discover new trails of evidence to add insight to the ongoing theory which ultimately leads to the answer they are all seeking?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
I feel strongly that "bunk" is an intentionally insulting word. So "debunking" is an intentionally insulting word.
It should not be applied to qualified scientists, who rarely falsify their publications.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
were these scientists debunking or refuting ... or revising ... a theory?
I think you've put your finger on it, W'ON. "Bunk" is not science. It doesn't even masquerade as serious science. It appeals only to the gullible and the credulous.
Scientists do not "debunk" theories they disagree with, as you have explained so cogently. They respect the mind and the intellectual process which produced the theory even if they disagree with it.
"Bunk" can never enjoy this kind of respect. It is, after all, just "bunk". If follows that it is far easier to debunk bunk than it is to refute science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
Surely, in order to debunk something effectively rather than just getting up on your hind legs and saying "I don't think ..." or "I don't think ... " you need evidence.
Amen, CK. My qualification is that in an imperfect world, what you say applies in the long run -- but in the short run passions can rule; ask Galileo about his experience with the Inquisition.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Right on, wwh. "Bunk" is an insult and one who "debunks" something is dismissing that thing as "bunk", also an insult.
Harry Houdini debunked seances. But no-one debunked Einstein. Some of Einstein's theories were flawed but they were never bunk.
One cannot debunk serious science or manifest truth because there is no "bunk" in these things to debunk.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear Max: Here is a URL answering the phony allegations that Moon Landings were faked: http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/Written by a planetary scientist, this is what I call genuine "debunking".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear Max: I had no intention of picking on you. I'm still amazed that an expensive TV program could be so wasted.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 819
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 819 |
Damn! Heretofore I thought a Bunkerist was one who used to agree with the star of All In The Family.
The whole point was that for one to use the
word debunk, one must simply believe that one has trashed a myth.
But can't one properly call any theory "myth?" It is a story, whether developed by repeatable demonstration or by empirical observation, that makes sense of what one percieves of the world around him. I suspect that truly debunking a myth would be tantamount do denying existence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
History is more or less bunk. - Henry Ford Leakey vs. Johanson is regarded as one of the Great Feuds in Science : Ten of the Liveliest Disputes Ever, by Hal Hellman, about which this can be found: excellent popular debunking of "story book" science history... Hellman presents us with a well written and carefully researched series of entertaining profiles about some notable debates in science (both old and current). These are informative and fun to read, but perhaps their greatest value for lay readers is in revealing the all-too human sides of the combatants. This discredits the "Story Book" version of science so often given in texts wherein noble scientists are portrayed as unblemished heroes fighting to bring light into the darkness against a purely non-scientific opposition. Here we see that even great scientists often squabble with one another and that they seldom epitomize rationality and objectivity.http://home.mn.rr.com/wwftd/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 618
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 618 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
I am NOT supporting bunk
Dear Max: We do understand that you are NOT supporting any of the bunk that sensible people take great pleasure in debunking. We simply disagree with you when you say that it is possible to "debunk" something which is not "bunk" in the first place.
One can't even CLAIM to be debunking something which has no bunk in it without misusing the word "debunk".
If I devise a machine to suck all the oxygen out of a molecule of hydrogen, I may claim that I am deoxygenating hydrogen. I may even believe that I am deoxygenating hydrogen. But, since there is no oxygen in hydrogen, I cannot describe the process as "deoxygenation" without misusing the word deoxygenation.
Its like sticking a "Mustard" label on a jar of blueberry jelly. It just ain't so.
The word "deoxygenation" has a specific meaning. It means removing oxygen. It doesn't mean trying to remove oxygen. It means actually removing it. So it is with debunking. Where there is no bunk, there can be no debunking.
Dear Max: I think we are all agreed that debunkery is a commendable act practised upon a sham. (That's why we have "Bunko Squads".) Since the truth and serious science can never be dismissed as a "sham", it is not possible to "debunk" either one.
In sum, "No sham, no bunk. No bunk, no debunkery."
We know that conscientous people misuse the word "debunk". That's how this thread got started in the first place. But one cannot cite evidence of misuse in high places as proof that that misuse is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
sigh... Max, I see your point, I agree with it, but I despair of better communication.
Aside to Max: does this seem eerily reminiscent of the White Knight's Song in Through the Looking Glass? [What is this song? What is this song called? What is the name of this song? What is the name of this song called?]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 771
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 771 |
But one cannot cite evidence of misuse in high places as proof that that misuse is correct.Oh, plutarch. Say it ain't so. Main Entry: ain't
Pronunciation: 'Ant
Etymology: contraction of are not
Date: 1778
1 : am not : are not : is not
2 : have not : has not
3 : do not : does not : did notCourtesy of http://www.m-w.com. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,539 Likes: 1
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,539 Likes: 1 |
Ignorance and apathy: I don't know and I don't care
My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
I think you're describing the ideal situation. Was E. O. Wilson less a scientist because he published "On Human Nature" and was considered "debunked" by the likes of Gould and campus radicals? Was Blondlot considered to have been debunked by Wood because N-rays were imaginary? Were Pons and Fleischman debunked?
It well may be that "debunk" is incorrectly and over used.
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Sigh is right, Max. We'll just have to agree to disagree. But I do see your point and I think you argued your case most admirably.
Whether or not my logic prevails over yours, I can never claim to have "debunked" your definition of "debunk". That's 'cause I respect your intelligence, Max, and the rigors of your analysis, even if I disagree with your conclusion.
Your conclusion may be wrong, but it certainly isn't "bunk".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
"If I devise a machine to suck all the oxygen out of a molecule of hydrogen, I may claim
that I am deoxygenating hydrogen. I may even believe that I am deoxygenating hydrogen."
Dear plutarch: I suspect that when you said "hydrogen" you meant "H2O"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Since the truth and serious science can never be dismissed as a "sham", it is not possible to "debunk" either one.However, due to the huge pressure to win prestige (and tenure), and to publish, there have been highly documented istances of scientists falsifying finds or experimental results just to further their careers. How would we categorize that? This from the Jan./Feb. 2002 issue of Archaeology: After Japanese archaeologist Shinichi Fujimura was caught on camera planting artifacts at a Paleolithic site in 2000, he insisted he was guilty of perpetrating only one other hoax during a remarkably successful career in which he pushed back the earliest occupation of Japan to 600,000 years ago ("Hand of God Does the Devil's Work," Jan/Feb 2001). Now the disgraced archaeologist has come clean and admitted to faking discoveries on at least 42 Middle and Lower Paleolithic sites in Japan.
Charles Keally, an archaeologist at Sophias University, Tokyo, notes that these sites account for virtually the entire archaeological record in Japan before the Upper
Paleolithic. "This leaves us with our oldest evidence for human occupation of Japan at 35,000 years ago," he says. Japanese textbooks are already being revised.
Though Fujimura's precise whereabouts have not been made public, he is known to have checked into a psychiatric hospital. Another archaeologist, Mitsuo Kagawa, committed suicide last year after a magazine accused him of faking finds at the Paleolithic site of Hijiridaki Cave in Japan's Oita perfecture. His family is now suing the magazine that published the allegations.So I guess Fujimura actually debunked his own data by confessing to the falsification of evidence. How much similar fraud has been perpetrated by scientists over the years and actually entered into the scientific record? This act of deception is, of course, much easier to commit in the prehistoric sciences than, say, in chemistry or physics. Perhaps we'll never know. Distressing. So, can you debunk an act of scientific fraud without actually knowing it's fraudulent until you arrive at your results...or just simply disprove it? Or are we just splitting semantic straws here?  And, while I agree that the process of attempting to debunk or debunkery is always viable, I still assert that arriving at an actual debunking in the case of a scientific theory is a misnomer because a theory, by nature, is constantly evolving. However, if you discover another element in water, let's say, you can then debunk the fact that water is H20.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
"f you discover another element in water, let's say, you can then debunk the fact that water is H20."
At the risk of being tiresome, I repeat: "bunk" is an insult, and "debunk" is an insult.Only when ignorance or fraudulence have been involved should these terms be used.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
I suspect you meant H2O rather than Hydrogen
That would have turned my analogy upside down, wwh. There isn't any O2 in H so it is impossible to extract O2 from H. Hence, one cannot "deoxygenate" hydrogen. It simply can't be done. And thinking you are doing it doesn't make it so. Similarly, it is impossible to "debunk" something which is not "bunk" in the first place. No bunk in, no bunk out.
We are completely ad idem on this, wwh. Only when ignorance or fraud is involved should these terms [bunk & debunker] be used.
"Debunking" is a noble undertaking but one doesn't need a Ph.D. to do it. "Bunk" isn't science and it isn't truth ... altho it usually masquerades as one or the other or both.
"Debunk" is a good word to describe the trashing of "bunk" or other "junk science". But let's not confuse it with the refutation of serious science or settled truths.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
There are those who merit both contempt and insults. I am free to insult, but mostly avoid it on the principle that kicking skunks is unrewarding.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
insults are always subjective
An insult is always experienced subjectively (if it is delivered with any effect), but the insult itself is not necessarily subjective. If someone has an IQ under 70, you might insult him by saying he is intellectually deficient, but you would also be stating an objective fact.
So it is with "bunk". It is certainly an insult to dismiss a postulation as "bunk", but that characterization is perfectly accurate if the postulation is merely junk science.
Serious science can never be debunked because it isn't tainted with bunk and it doesn't deserve to be treated as bunk.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,539 Likes: 1
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,539 Likes: 1 |
I think we're mostly agreeing with each other. And with much heat, at that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
But not progressing toward any resolution, eh Max?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
For a while I had a debunking job in Army. When recruits were slow to get up for reveille, I used to grab the foot of their mattress, and jerk it right out from under them, leaving them bouncing on the bare springs. It was a very effective way of debunking them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
I think we're mostly agreeing with each other. And with much heat, at that. -wofaholicodoc
Naw wofdoc, on slow days we just choose up sides and argue greatly just for kicks...
Everyone agrees:
It is more logical to de- a real bunk.
Everyone agrees:
There are no innate meanings in words, and usage determines meaning.
So if it is not for fun, then...Why are we talking?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
>>So if it is not for fun, then...Why are we talking?
You never heard people talking with no reason?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
Max, you're absolutely WRONG!!! That number of angels CAN dance on the head of a pin! [grrrrr -e]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear Keiva: An infinite number can dance on the head of a pin. Somewhat fewer can dance on the point of the pin. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_132.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
oh goody... let's talk some about slightly more than and slightly less than infinity. we can keep notes on our definitive conclusions in the margin. http://home.mn.rr.com/wwftd/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Well, since Dr. Bill ventured to lapse into humor here , let me share a little anectdote I was saving: In '86 when I first worked in Atlantic City, I was employed in slot promotions at the Claridge Casino/Hotel. At that time their marketing campaign centered around the material of an old comedian, Eddie Lawrence, who billed himself as "The Old Foolosopher." He had a character and a vast repertoire of sayings (ala Rodney Dangerfield's "ain't got no repsect" focus) centered on his fractured philosophy. A sample might go like this (always said with a patronizingly sad and understanding tone): "You say the days never seem to get better but only get worse, that your wife just ran off with the postman in your brand new car, that your nearest bus stop is three miles away, that taxi drivers will never let you in when they see your face, and your dog just peed on your left foot...is that what's bothering you, Bunky?" ("is that what's bothering you, Bunky?" is the catch-phrase repeated at the end of every scenario). So...the marketing department decided that "Bunky" would become their mascot-character! He was drawn as a little guy similar to the old gent on Monopoly cards. I worked in the Bunky Booth, we had coupons called Bunky Bucks, we had a Bunky Lounge, and there was actually a guy in a papier maché Bunky suit who walked around all day and night as the character! No one really knows where The Old Foolosopher got "Bunky" from... Now how's that for a load of real bunk? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Is that what's bothering you, Bunky?
I wonder if your Claridge customers ever figured out that the "Bunky" joke was on them. Whatever their fate with Lady Luck, Bunky's fortunes were always worse.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
We have a lot of talented debunkers in Afghanistan. Ask the Al-Quaeda.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
-- 8 -- You got a problem with that!? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
where The Old Foolosopher got "Bunky" from
Allus thunk it was from bunkmate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Where did Bunky come from?
Bunky is the "bunkmate" everyone would love to have. No matter how bad things are going for us, things are always worse for Bunky. Even his dog let him down.
So how come we are comforted, even amused, by the adversities of others, especially when we are depressed ourselves?
Bunky reminds us things are never as bad as they seem. But where is the humor in Bunky's unrelenting suffering? Why do we laugh at Bunky?
When bear-baiting was all the fashion in some places in Europe long ago, someone said they were opposed to bear-baiting "not because it gave pain to the bear but because it gave pleasure to the spectators".
Bunky gives us access to the deeper reaches of the human condition. What we see there is not always uplifting.
There is more to this than "There but for the grace of God go I", I think. Bunky closes the loop between ordinary people who laugh at Bunky's misfortunes, as a salve for their own wounds, and neo-Nazis who paper over their own insecurities by dehumanizing others.
Who was it who said that the germ of every psychopathology resides within all of us? Pogo said: "I have seen the enemy. And it is us."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
I'm still amazed that an expensive TV program could be so wasted.
I get so "amazed" every time I watch *it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
Mostly, this thread has been boring.. but once you mentioned bunkmate-- i thought about sleeping (or not) in a bunk.
Any movie fans out there know the name of the circa 1948 movie, about a man who enters a contest sponsered by a coffee company for a new slogan?
His (the hero of the movie) slogan is "If you can't sleep, its not the coffee, its the bunk." (but i think he put in the brand name where i said coffee.)
every one thinks its a dumb slogan.. its an interesting movie... mostely about how we react to words!
and the name is?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
If you can't sleep, its not the coffee, its the grind.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Mostly, this thread has been boring..
Oh, mercy, I have loved it! I think it exemplifies what this board is all about: what's the real meaning?; but wait, have you considered this aspect? kind of thing.
In fact, I am now going to yield to the temptation I resisted earlier in the thread, and see if there might be a mini-revival: centuries ago, it was "fact" that the world was flat. Was that "fact" bunk, back then? Because it sounds right to me now, to say that that "fact" has been debunked.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear Jackie: I think the clue to what is 'bunk" is whether or not it deserves scorn. The people thousands of years ago formed opinions based on their ability to learn and understand the world around them. Their ideas were sadly erroneous, but need not be called bunk. When lazy or misguided people today choose to ignore the teachings of the brightest people, their errors need not be condoned, and may rightly be called "bunk".
The creationists are simply misguided, and their views do not deserve much respect. When they try to lower educational standards, it is justifiable to call their beliefs "bunk".
Anybody who has seen Grand Canyon, or good pictures of it, and can still profess to believe it is only a few thousand years old deserves no respect whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Was that "fact", back then, "bunk"?
I suppose it became "bunk" the day after it was widely and reliably reported that Magellan circumnavigated the globe.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear plutarch: Long before Magellan, the Greeks knew the earth was round, and even computed its circumference:
Eratosthenes made a surprisingly accurate measurement of the circumference of the Earth. Details were given in his treatise On
the measurement of the Earth which is now lost. However, some details of these calculations appear in works by other authors such as Cleomedes, Theon of Smyrna and Strabo. Eratosthenes compared the noon shadow at midsummer between Syene (now Aswan on the Nile in Egypt) and Alexandria. He assumed that the sun was so far away that its rays were essentially parallel, and then with a knowledge of the distance between Syene and Alexandria, he gave the length of the circumference of the Earth as 250,000 stadia.
There is now some disagreement about the length of the stadium, but it does not really diminish his feat.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
A problem is that many things appear to be bunk and are only later discovered to be not so much bunk. An example is continental drift. The old guard is often scornful at newer views. Sometimes, even the greatest experts are wrong. And with so much politics thrown into the mix, it's often difficult for one to discern the bunk from the merely mistaken from the brilliant.
Are Peter Duesberg's ideas about AIDS and HIV bunk? A great many scientists disagree with him. But many people considered him brilliant before he broke away from the pack. I tend to disagree with him (only because of my herd instinct, though, and not because I know enough to evaluate what he says). Still, even if he's wrong, would we call his ideas bunk? If he's wrong, they might even be dangerous ideas. I'm sure there are some people who think his ideas (and probably his person) are worthy of scorn.
Evolution vs creation is an interesting case. I believe there are people among the creation scientists who deliberately mislead others. I say this as someone who was formerly a creationist and who is slightly irritated at having been misled. The vast majority of creationists, however, are not attempting to mislead anyone. Some don't have the education to understand what the issues are and how things work. Many are ignorant, but usually not wilfully so. Their heads are filled with crap before they're even old enough to distinguish their craniums from their sphincters. I certainly feel contempt for creationism, but seldom for creationists. And despite having heard that creationists are trying to make more moves on the school systems, I'm not that worried about it.
In Darwin's time, creationists declared that evolution was impossible because god would not make anything that wasn't perfect. When the gypsum moth was later used, they would say declare that, okay frequencies can changes, but nothing new could be created. Later, it was discovered that microbes mutate and they admitted that okay microbes can evolve but new species are not formed. Nowadays, the creationist elites (scientists at the ICR) admit that certainly evolution can produce new species, but not new *kinds* where *kinds* is ... well, wherever we notice a fossil gap, I guess. I'm not sure what it means. In any case, I suspect that in my children's lifetimes, creationist beliefs will become as rare as belief in a flat earth. My memory is fuzzy here and some of my facts might be slightly off, but I think this is generally true. Even creation scientists now acknowledge that evolution occurs.
Sidenotes:
You're surely aware there is a growing community of skeptics who are acutely interested in what is and what is not bunk. I read an article by Mary Lefkowitz some years back called "Greece for the Greeks: History is not Bunk" which I found pretty interesting. She wrote a book that expanded these ideas called "Not out of Africa" which a friend gave me for xmas and which turned out to be well worth the time. (She also edited a later one called "Black Athena Revisited" which I have not yet read. ) I wonder how many other books have the word "bunk" in the title.
Martin Gardner wrote two very good books called "Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus" and "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" that gave accounts of poor science and quackery. James (the Amazing) Randi wrote "Flim Flam." Last time I checked, there were dozens of books (at least) published by Prometheus, many of which dealt with the issue of bunk and its debunking.
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Henry Ford has been quoted, a bit inaccurately as saying "History is bunk" Here is a URL about it: http://www.who2.com/henryford.htmlI had not heard before about his anti-Semitism and pre-war support of Adolf Hitler.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
Ford's antisemitism was reasonably well known among jews. There were two makes of car that may parents would never consider buying: Ford, and Volkswagen.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 460
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 460 |
"Christmas in July" it is! Written and directed by Preston Sturges in 1940, it starred Dick Powell and Ellen Drew. Powell, in the character of Jimmy MacDonald, uses the words as you remembered them, Helen.
Information from Internet Movie Database (us.imdb.com)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
the old guard is often scornful of newer views
How true. In fact, the old guard is always scornful of the newer view. That's why they are "the old guard".
The truth doesn't require any "guarding", least of all by those who have become overly-attached to it by reason of custom rather than acuity.
And just as there are cycles of "bunk", ushered in when a verity like the flat earth sinks like a ship over the horizon, so also there are cycles of virtue when vices become virtues and virtues become vices again.
Take greed, for instance. Thursday's Wall Street Journal carries this headline on the first page. "How Decade of Greed Undid the Proud Respectability of a Very Old Professional". And guess what, they're not talking about the world's oldest profession. They're talking about the Enron auditors who approved the Balance Sheet shell game that turned massive losses into spectacular profits, leading to the largest collapse in corporate history.
I thought greed was supposed to be good for us. Sometimes greed doesn't trickle down. It thunders down.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 104
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 104 |
Are Peter Duesberg's ideas about AIDS and HIV bunk?
What are his ideas, Fallible?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
http://www.duesberg.com/ Professor Duesberg's credentials are so impressive, the fact that only a few scientists support him would not justify calling his views "bunk", even though they may subsequently be completely discredited.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,539 Likes: 1
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,539 Likes: 1 |
...lesser folk publish bunk.
The same phenomenon occurred with [Nobel-prize-winner] Linus Pauling's assessment of the value of megadoses of Vitamin C, not validated by later work though certainly sporting anecdotal reports and testimonials galore on its behalf.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
Yes, I remember well Linus Pauling's claims of great health benefits of massive doses of vitamin "C" . Bunk? I don't know, how old was Linus when he died?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
credentials so impressive what he says isn't bunk
Ordinarily, I would agree with you, wwh. But, in this case, Duesberg's "crusade" is considered dangerous by many because it subverts the "safe sex" message. Duesberg's detractors argue that his public stridency as an "HIV-refusenik" is a huge gamble and therefore irresponsible because his science is no more conclusive than the science he impugns.
A January 2002 article in the French publication "Sciences et Avenir" acknowledges that Duesberg is providing a useful service in keeping researchers on their toes, but it also warns that Duesberg has invested so much in his crusade, he may have lost his objectivity.
Perhaps we ought to consider a further refinement on your qualifications for "bunk", wwh. Fraud, ignorance + evangelical apostasy more distinguished for its potential for public harm than for public good.
I grant it is easier to debunk Duesberg's mission than his science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
I haven't read his site in a long time, but from what I recall, his main idea is that HIV doesn't cause AIDS and that AIDS itself is not one affliction, but numerous poorly diagnosed conditions that are caused by drugs.
This probably isn't *exactly* it, but it's close enough, I think. It's a pretty unpopular view and I there's surely a lot of people who would say it's bunk. But *I* don't know enough to say that it is. I'm sure there are a lot of people who *know* a lot of things that could feel comfortable saying it's bunk. Of that number, I would guess there's very few who are actually qualified to make a judgement.
From outside we have a small group of dissenters (some of whom have very good credentials) against a vast collection of scientists who think this view is not just wrong, but dangerous.
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
In the latest Discover magazine there is mention of a book published back in 1970's, The Secret Life of Plants. The author claimed that he could talk to his philodendrons, and detect their response.
Now, that is what I call bunk.
"However, a person completely ignorant of plant and animal science has
not only tested plants for perception and feeling, he claims that he has
scientific proof that plants experience a wide range of emotions and
thoughts. He also claims that plants can read human minds. His name is
Cleve Backster and he published his research in the International
Journal of Parapsychology ("Evidence of a Primary Perception in
Plant Life," 10, 1968). He tested his plants on a polygraph machine and
found that plants react to thoughts and threats."
I say again, that is bunk, bunk, bunk......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Backster also claims that a philodendron can read human minds
I agree this is bunk, wwh. While philodendron are known to be tolerant of low light, they have too much horticulture to waste their time on a man like Backster. A philodendron would sooner read Ovid in the original Greek than a mind like his.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Careful there, plutarch, you are getting close to bunk, attributing preferences to philodendrons.
I once had college English teacher who foamed at the mouth about the "pathetic fallacy" - attributing human faculties to animals. I don't think he would have survived the allegation that plants have mental processes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
attributing preferences to philodendron
Philodendrons don't have "preferences", wwh, but they do have good breeding. Its more a matter of disdain than discrimination.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Duesberg's "crusade" is considered dangerous by many because it subverts the "safe sex" message. Duesberg's detractors argue that his public stridency as an "HIV-refusenik" is a huge gamble and therefore irresponsible because his science is no more conclusive than the science he impugns.
See, here's my dilemma. How can *we* know this? From Deusberg's perspective, the AIDS establishment is endangering lives, because it subverts the message that drug use is dangerous and that more care needs to be taken on diagnosis. (I don't recall reading this anywhere. I'm inferring what he might claim based on my understanding of what I thought I read.)
but it also warns that Duesberg has invested so much in his crusade, he may have lost his objectivity.
Deusberg might lodge the same complaint against the establishment. (I keep using the term 'establishment.' I don't mean it to be derogatory. Just descriptive.)
Perhaps we ought to consider a further refinement on your qualifications for "bunk", wwh. Fraud, ignorance evangelical apostasy more distinguished for its potential for public harm than for public good.
Dykstra's second (of three) golden rules of scientific research is to "choose soundness over relevance." Also, Galileo was evangelical (and probably Urban VIII thought he was acting for the public good).
I grant it is easier to debunk Duesberg's mission than his science.
Maybe I picked a bad example to make my point. I see there are several issues here.
1) That it's not uncommon for scientific disputants to use rhetorical language to denounce their opponents. (They may not always use the word 'bunk', but they impart all that it connotes in their accusations.)
2) That it seems damned near impossible for laymen to figure out what is and what is not bunk, given that even those on the loosing side are generally more knowledgeable than we are on a subject in dispute.
3) That there is a difference between how the word is commonly used and what its etymology or lexicography might suggest.
There are some things that are surely bunk, by even the strictest standards. Creationism is bunk (even if some minuscule number of its scientists are competent and make legitimate contributions). Flat-earth is bunk. Astrology is bunk. Crop circles (as signs from extra-terrestrials) is bunk. There are lots more. (Madam Cleo's readings, Peter Popoff's healings, etc.) But there is this area where scientists disagree and attempt to effect political solutions to their disagreements (often because there are political consequences). I feel very uncomfortable with lay persons making decisions about what is bunk in disputes between specialists and possibly pruning entire branches of human knowledge.
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Ever heard of the garden and community of Findhorn in Scotland, guys? Scientists have never been able to come up with an empirical explanation for the enormity and superabundance of the plant growth there. Here, the claims of enhancing growth by acknowledging and inter-reacting with the spiritual life of plants seem to be substantiated.
And one of my best friends who was a curator at a women's art museum in Edinburgh for some time, felt so strongly about her experiences there, in the Findhorn community, that when she died 4 years ago she left a request to have her ashes scattered there, at the Garden of Findhorn. Her wishes were so honored.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
there is an area where scientists disagree
Can we call this area the axis of ambiguity [not to be confused with the "Axis of Evil"]?
Within this "axis of ambiguity", would it be reasonable to weigh the case by the urgency of its implications rather than by the celebrity of its advocate?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 618
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 618 |
Peter Duesberg is a loony. If you wish, I will happily debunk his theories, or at least those listed on his web site. They are based on an incomplete understanding of epidemiology, statistics, and the definition, clinical course, and pathology of AIDS. I have no doubt that he is an excellent researcher within the cancer field, but for the good of science and society as a whole, I hope he refrains from further comment on HIV-AIDS.
Yes, I realise this is just my opinion, and I realise that Mr Duesberg is entitled to his, but it bothers me that he is using his reknown in one field to make comment in another.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Within this "axis of ambiguity", would it be reasonable to weigh the case by the urgency of its implications rather than by the celebrity of its advocate?
Sure. That's not what I do. Like I said, I follow the majority on this one, because I don't know any better. And I'm not sure that's any more reasonable. OTOH, I'm not sure that your argument isn't a false dichotomy. There are urgent implications either way.
But even were I to accept the urgency vs celebrity argument as a justification for "choosing the path directed by urgency," I don't think I'd be justified in calling Deusberg a purveyor of bunk. (This is not to say that others would not or are not justified in doing so, only that I don't consider myself competent to justifiably apply the term.)
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Peter Duesberg is a loony.
Maybe he is. I haven't been to his site recently. I vaguely recall reading that he would voluntarily inject himself with HIV. Regardless of any scientific basis he might have, that seems like a pretty loony proposition.
Now, Doc, you can debunk to your heart's content. And I might be able to follow a few of the statistical arguments - maybe. But the rest of it, I would just have to take your word for (or go to school for medicine myself). You have some expertise for judging Deusberg's theories as bunk. Maybe Bill does and maybe a few others. But I'm not sure what the rest of us could do but parrot what you tell us.
k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
There are urgent implications either way
That may be widely assumed, TFF, but that does not appear to be the case.
Those engaged in the fight against AIDS believe they are fighting a global pandemic, one which can be contained by the practice of safe sex. As I understand it, Duesberg believes that safe sex is a non-issue because HIV has nothing to do with AIDS. As far as I know, he doesn't propose a solution for the spread of AIDS, apart from terminating the use of one AIDS medication, AZT, which he believes actually causes the disease, and apart from discouraging the use of drugs like cocaine which are already illegal.
Let us suppose Duesberg is right. What are the "urgent implications" of his thesis. We should spend less time and effort on the campaign for safe sex, less time and effort finding a cure for AIDS because most of us aren't druggies, and perhaps more time and effort fighting illegal drugs (altho I'm not sure he has taken an active interest in this). If there is more to Duesberg's 'value proposition' than this, I would love to hear it.
Ranged against all the money to be saved if we follow Duesberg's evangelical message, is the risk that Duesberg is wrong and we will disengage our most effective weapon against the disease, namely, safe sex, which is a good idea in any case considering the epidemic of sexually-transmitted disease in our society.
I understand the safe sex message has already been muted by the news that "drug cocktails" are effective in managing the disease and this optimism has led directly to an increase in unprotected sex and AIDS in some homosexual communities. Duesberg's message, itself only a theory, will obviously engender further optimism in this direction, in direct proportion to the visibility of his theory, with a corresponding increase in victims of AIDS.
Can it truly be said that "there are urgent implications either way", TTF? If we remove Duesberg's personal vanity from the equation, there is almost nothing here to weigh in Duesberg's favor. Duesberg's science may be sound, I really can't say, but his mission is bunk.
If Deusberg's "crusade" results in a single new victim of AIDS, his crusade is more than reckless. It is deadly ... and some might say criminal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
While Duesberg may be the most vocal critic, he's not the only one. Kary Mullis (nobel prize winner) wrote the forward to his book and agrees (or at least agreed) that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. I still wouldn't risk it. I don't feel comfortable defending the actions of a person whose views I don't agree with.
If Duesberg disagrees with current research, what should he do? Should scientists state their opinions based on social consequences? I notice there doesn't appear to be much new on either his site or the virusmyth.org site. They're exactly as I remember them from years ago. Makes me wonder if he's even still active or if these are just vestigial pages expressing something even he no longer believes.
Let me ask you this: if doctors give advice to patients that turns out to be wrong, are they being criminal?
I think the urgency of his message (if he were correct) would be obvious. The importance of avoiding the use of certain drugs, like cocaine. That it's illegal doesn't mean that people aren't using it. Maybe if people recognized that it was so dangerous, they might not do it. (No more unreasonable than expecting that people would be more likely to use a condom if they thought not using one was dangerous.)
I'm getting a bit off the track. I'm not arguing that he's right. I'm only questioning whether one ought to apply the term 'bunk' to what he's saying, even if he's wrong.
k
Edit:
I was reviewing a little of his site just now and it's not clear he would view the view the situation as urgent. I retract that part of what I said (it was a guess anyway), but maintain the rest of what I said.
My main point has nothing to do with Duesberg (who was just an example), but with how we as lay people can be justified in using words like "bunk" to describe things that we (most of us) may not completely understand. (I wonder if there is a term for those of us who defend views that we don't competely understand.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385 |
Is it bunk or controversial science?
I'm not saying his science is "bunk", TFF. I'm saying his mission, the evangelization of his theory, is bunk. If Duesberg's arrogant appropriation of the mantle of certainty endangered only himself, no-one would care ... and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Is Duesberg making a meaningful contribution to the fight against crack-cocaine? Considering the billions that are already being spent on that crusade, it does seem unlikely, doesn't it?
Is Duesberg still active in the crusade? The French publication "Sciences et Avenir" reported that he and his fellow "HIV-refuseniks" gathered for a media event in January 2002.
Should doctors be liable for prescribing a course of medication which turns out to be wrong? You know the answer to that one, TFF. Not if the doctor, having examined his or her patient thoroughly, is acting responsibly in accordance with the weight of current medical practice and opinion. How can we compare this with Duesberg's crusade?
Again, its the mission which is bunk, TFF, not the theory.
Unfortunately, there is no necessary correlation between celebrity and social responsibility, nor between genius and social responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 104
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 104 |
Findhorn international community and garden
I visited Findhorn.org. I see they are plannng to launch a "virtual tour" of the garden. I'll go back when its up. Thanks for the tip, Whitman.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 104
member
|
|
member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 104 |
superabundance of plant growth
There is an announcement on the Findhorn web site saying a major movie about the Community is planned (with Sean Connery). Title: "the Garden of Angels". Your curator friend is not the only one who is taking the garden seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
There is an announcement on the Findhorn web site saying a major movie about the Community is planned (with Sean Connery). Title: "the Garden of Angels". Your curator friend is not the only one who is taking the garden seriously.Thanks for that great news, moss! Good to hear that the story of Findhorn is finally getting the attention it deserves. And if Sean Connery signed-on the project, it must be a pretty good script. Perhaps something reminiscent of his role in Medicine Man (a highly underrated film I thought).
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,328
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
756
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
