#60459
03/16/2002 1:16 AM
|
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.
|
|
|
#60460
03/16/2002 2:27 AM
|
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.
|
|
|
#60461
03/16/2002 11:41 AM
|
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)
|
|
|
#60462
03/16/2002 12:32 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
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.
|
|
|
#60463
03/17/2002 12:55 AM
|
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?
|
|
|
#60464
03/17/2002 1:14 AM
|
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.
|
|
|
#60465
03/17/2002 12:13 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,066 Likes: 2
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,066 Likes: 2 |
...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.
|
|
|
#60466
03/17/2002 12:29 PM
|
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?
|
|
|
#60467
03/17/2002 12:33 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
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.
|
|
|
#60468
03/17/2002 6:40 PM
|
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
|
|
|
#60469
03/17/2002 8:22 PM
|
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......
|
|
|
#60470
03/17/2002 9:56 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
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.
|
|
|
#60471
03/17/2002 10:18 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
#60472
03/17/2002 10:30 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
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.
|
|
|
#60473
03/17/2002 10:54 PM
|
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
|
|
|
#60474
03/18/2002 12:00 AM
|
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.
|
|
|
#60475
03/18/2002 12:43 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
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?
|
|
|
#60476
03/18/2002 4:18 AM
|
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.
|
|
|
#60477
03/18/2002 7:41 AM
|
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
|
|
|
#60478
03/18/2002 7:53 AM
|
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
|
|
|
#60479
03/18/2002 11:18 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
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.
|
|
|
#60480
03/18/2002 11:51 AM
|
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.)
|
|
|
#60481
03/18/2002 12:23 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
veteran
|
|
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.
|
|
|
#60482
03/19/2002 4:27 AM
|
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.
|
|
|
#60483
03/24/2002 8:20 PM
|
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.
|
|
|
#60484
03/24/2002 8:40 PM
|
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).
|
|
|
|
|
