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
