HexagonSun

Well I guess we can start by believing your spoon-fed militant atheist propaganda. Define your terms. How do you define rationality? Perhaps if you were not so empirically fideistic in your approach to understanding as well as being arrogant you could strive to reach at least some semblance of truth/reality.

Just take a deep breath and put the Richard Dawkins book down for about two months and try to read something else. If you absolutely can't stand Western civilization or the benefits you currently enjoy from it then at least read some Eastern philosophy and attempt to understand humility and the concept of openness. I'm aware that your atheistic inhibitions may limit you, but just try it and "have an open mind."

Strange Famous

Certainly:

John Seale, M.D. "Origins of the AIDS Viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2: Fact or Fiction?" (The British Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 81:617-619, 1988)

A simple Google search would provide you with 10,000's of articles.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Stare At The Sun

And that Doctor said Aids was man-made?

Link the article.

Strange Famous

It is quite simple if one uses google

Origins of the AIDS viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2: fact or fiction.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

SecretMethod70

1) That's over 20 years old, and a great deal of AIDS understanding took place after 1988.
2) You actually linked to a letter to the editor critical of the article you cite. Not only is it quite simple if one uses Google, it's quite simple if one actually pays reads what he finds.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Strange Famous

1 - the facts have not changed since 1988
2 - the question was whether anyone had claimed that AIDS was man made in any seious journal. of course they have. This is not the majority view, but a signifiant number of people have argued it. It does not surprise us that the state/university/military complex maintains a defeaning silence in regards to such allegations.

_

I am not saying I can prove it to be so, but in my opinion, it is most likely that AIDS is man made.

Approach the question as any detective would

The villian has form. We know about experiments where black soliders were deliberately given diseases, where soldiers were exposed to radiation, etc.

We know that many states have experimented with biological warfare.

We know that a condition found in monkeys for all history *SUDDENLY* starts spreading like wildfire, at the same time, in unrelated locations amongst humans.

You look the evidence and you draw the conclusions which make the most sense

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Cynthetiq

you mean jump to the conclusions that make the most sense.

drawing a conclusion would require empirical evidence.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Strange Famous

If you want emperical evidence it is possible, with some imagination, to picture the millions of lives lost and blighted due to this calamity.

I repeat - does what we know to be factually true with regards to the conduct of the US state and biological warfare cause you to believe that this is beyond them?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Baraka_Guru

Well, there was that theory that work being done on the polio vaccine may have created AIDS. But after reviewing the evidence, that theory's been refuted.

Other than that, theories of testing with biological weapons and the creation of AIDS is far more speculative and begins to pull us into the realm of Tilted Paranoia, does it not?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Strange Famous

Yes, one might say that Tuskegee syphilis experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia belonged in the ranks of "titled paranoia"

Except we know it is true

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Mantus

Rational –adjective
1. agreeable to reason

Sadly I can't find any other comments or questions relating to my OP in your post. It sounds like you have all the answers to my questions so please don't spare my little atheistic inhibited mind.

Baraka_Guru

Why would it belong in Tilted Paranoia if we know it's true?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Strange Famous

If we know that the US state would deliberately infect people with one disease, I think it is not "paranoid" to suspect that they would deliberately infect people with a disease

Im sorry if my original comment was unclear to you.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Baraka_Guru

It is paranoid if you assume that it was done that it will be done "virtually anywhere."

Take the use of depleted uranium. It isn't paranoid to start criticizing the U.S. for ravaging Iraq with the stuff. But it is paranoid to suggest that the U.S. is intentionally distributing toxic materials wholesale in other realms of its dealings, including trade, commerce, and foreign aid.

You're making a big leap here.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Strange Famous

I repeat, do you doubt that they are capable of a crime like this?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Stare At The Sun

Yes.

What is the *point* of infecting people with AIDS? Why would the US Government want to do this?

There is no reason.

Strange Famous

What is the point of depriving people with syphilis of treatment?

King Science?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

roachboy

so wait....sf: your argument makes some sense if you restrict it to the line that equates **aspects** of how **some** institutions engaged in scientific work with the more general rationalities particular to capitalism. so research "subjects" are types of things to be manipulated, not human beings...which is of a piece with the wider orientation toward "rational mastery" with respect to nature (nature is a collection of resources to be exploited for example).

but it doesn't work as a general critique of this abstraction that the thread has us all referring to as Science.

to get to that, though, you'd need to start differentiating between sciences and institutional spaces that types of scientific work occupy...the extent to which particular institutional spaces are implicated with, say, military research (and all of the examples you've cited are or are alleged to be so implicated)...but not *all* scientific work is so implicated, and there are whole regions of scientific work the frameworks and work of which entirely undermine the basic ideological framework that is presupposed when you say (implicitly anyway) that some scientific work simply repeats more general forms of capitalist rationality.

alot of the work in the biological systems that comes out of dynamical systems for example...much of it does a real job on the subject-verb-object based mode of construing being-in-the-world (spectatorship and all that).

if folk thought in terms of logical hierarchies, undermining base-line relations would topple all the structures built on the basis of those base-line structures.
but it seems that people think in collage terms. another example of the types of separation that keep a fundamentally barbaric mode of production running along with the consent it requires.

but i digress.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Strange Famous

roachboy,

To be clear - I am stating that I believe AIDS is a man made virus

I am stating that I believe climate change is man made phenomona, that human industry is acting as a catalyst of naturalk cycles.

I am stating that I believe science created the atom bomb, the gas chamber, acid rain, a massive increase in cancer deaths

Please let me know which specific point you would like to dispute.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

roachboy

uh...what i'm saying, sf, is that i understand the points you're making and in some cases agree with them, but at the same time i don't see you doing your own position any favors by the way you're laying out your case. there's an entirely elaborated framework that'd let you do what i think you're doing without getting in as much trouble as you're getting into in this thread. the only reasons i bothered to write anything about it are
(1) i'm kinda sympathetic to the marxian critique of capitalist science, which is a main reason that i find it so annoying to read the way you're mangling it and
(2) i was trying to help you out of the box you're own mode of argument has gotten you into.

but do as you like, argue as you like. it's a parlor game.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Strange Famous

history is not made in internet discussions

this is somewhat changing the subject - but it is my belief that if I have my "3 score and 12" I will die in a communist world... and nothing that people say back and forth here will make a difference

whatever truth comes out about AIDS, the damage which the forces of production have done to the world in the hands of capital can hardly be denied by the future generation

_

As for the scum who govern today, I do not see any substantial difference to the men European invaders who gave Americans small pox infested blankets.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Mantus

We’ve made a point that scientific conclusions and implementation of technology cannot be blindly trusted. All human being are susceptible to errors and corruption. It’s interesting that economics came up because the recent economic crisis was caused by placing too much trust into free market capitalist ideology. It was dogmatized to the point where anyone questioning our economic system's integrity was portrayed as a paranoid skeptic. This is certainly not a healthy attitude.

So there are two points that need to be addressed.

a) Overall society has greatly benefited from science and progress. Despite the cost of mistakes, abuse and corruption we in the western world have a fantastic standard of living and on average rest of the world has benefited as well.

b) Extreme denialism such as mentioned in the OP breeds ignorance. It also hampers accountability of science because people pursuing truth end up being identified with extremist groups and lose their credibility.

This thread has some great examples of this phenomenon. I don’t know much about Strange or Dippin personally but the way they presented their arguments effected how much I trusted their ideas.

Because Dippin was civil and took time to educate me on his point of view I was much more receptive to his ideas and even invested my own time into further inquiry. I was not disappointed; he opened a new door of knowledge for me.

Strange Famous’ fanatical, personal and opinionated approach really turned me off any ideas he offered. I feel that his conclusions are second hand. I don’t event want to read up on his claim that AIDS is a human created virus because it will be a colossal waste of my time.

If AIDS was a man made disease would people like Strange hamper our investigation into this case by discrediting such endeavors though association? Or, are people like Strange needed to keep the flame of skepticism alive?

Strange Famous

I suppose being very patronising is the only way you can relate to people?

I wonder we really feel that is better to starve to death in the Sudan with the comfort that rich Americans have lots of video games, than it was to live or die by your efforts in the era of "cave men

Of course, the cheerleaders of science do not worry abut people so base they do not even own Playstations. They are very sure that the poor deserve what they get.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

MSD

There is strong evidence that lentiviruses have existed for at least 14 million years, as demonstrated by the presence of endogenous lentivirus DNA in the genetic code of the gray mouse lemur. HIV-1 is closely related to Simian Immunodeficiency virus, carried by many simians in Sub-Saharan Africa, which is thought to have mutated to a strain transmissible to humans and transmitted by a bite or blood-blood contact by chimpanzee hunters. The geographic spread of HIV-2 is almost entirely contained in West Africa, where a similar immunodeficiency virus is documented in the sooty mangabey monkey, whose habitat is limited to that region.

By citing one paper from 1988 that opposes the majority consensus, you are cherry picking evidence in the same way that AGW denialists do when they harp on publications related to global cooling from the same time period, even though the theory was never widely accepted or even published on to nearly the same extent as global warming.
Science is not a singular entity and to claim it as such is disingenuous. Scientific research led to understanding of nuclear radiation, which allowed the atom bomb to be created, but also allowed for such direct applications as nuclear power (which produces no pollution other than thermal,) x-ray radiography, radiation therapy for cancer, and the ionizing smoke detector (which, as the cheapest detector design, allowed smoke detectors to be sold for a few dollars a piece and even given away to the poor, saving countless lives.)

Scientific research led to understanding of how various chemicals affect the human body, including the development of poisonous gases, but many of those gas chambers were nothing more than sealed rooms with vehicle exhaust piped in from trucks running outside. Where gas chamers were impractical, victims were lined up and shot one by one. It is hardly appropriate to blame biologists and chemists for the application of their research by a government intent on committing genocide, especially when agents of that government were content to simply shoot people in the head when convenient.

Climate change is almost certainly a man-made phenomenon (yes, I'm doing that science thing and refusing to state something with absolute certainty,) and was an inadvertent and unknown byproduct of industrialization. Now that it is known and understood, huge amounts of funding and billions of person-hours are directed to research into how to minimize our effect on our environment and reverse the damage that we have done. I remember the problem of ozone depletion, and I remember being told in elementary school that by the time I had children, it would be unsafe to go outside for more than a few minutes without sunscreen. A concerted global effort to address that problem happened, and not only has ozone depletion been all but stopped, the ozone layer is regrowing. It's the same with acid rain: at first we didn't know we were causing it, but once we realized the damage we were doing, we started to address the problem with -- brace yourself -- scientific research.

Industrialization and commerce have introduced cancer-causing agents into our environment, but a major focus in industry and regulation is how to reduce harmful contaminants. Major advancements in cancer treatment have been made by medical researchers, life expectancies of cancer patients continue to rise. You have probably also heard of Gardasil, the HPV vaccine. It is the product of medical research, and to put it very simply, it is a vaccine against cancer. You have to admit that's a pretty big accomplishment.

Vaultboy

Stated more simply, Science isn't value-free, which is something any scientist who ever needed funding to do research (or more frequently these days to implement research) can attest to. I spend half my time writing proposals and reports to funders, trying to couch it in a language and weave it into a project design that funders respond to. Currently the "in-things" are "climate change" and "science in the service of society". Science is further not value-free (and should not be) because scientific knowledge is inevitably put to some use. This is best expressed in a quote I read (or heard) somewhere: "Oh noes! You're using science for no good! We promised we would do that less."


Filtherton, o your other point, I prefer to define Science as "The search for The Truth".
(I like short definitions)


I contest the OP's assertion that science is losing crediblity. Scientists were never viewed with much credibility throughout human history - at least not scientists on the cutting edge. I also cannot agree with the statement that "humans reacting irrationally to fear and the unknown". Most human behaviour can be rationalised, even if it is viewed to be "wrong" (depending on the time-frame of such review).

Given that science is a process, people are free to reject findings along the way. Scepticism is good for science. The issue highlighted in the OP, that of scientific progress being hampered by ignorance is incorrect. The biggest obstacle to innovation is capitalism, as experienced in a global economy run by multi-nationals who dictate the implementation and research direction of science. Not public ignorance.


Anyway, I normally just lurk around. Feel free to ignore my views. As a scientist, I'm used to it.

__________________
"Failing tastes of bile and dog vomit. Pity any man that gets used to that taste."

Walt

It's called "zoonosis". It's not uncommon.

Is that what you're doing here?

I think you need to Google the definition of "empirical".

Experimentation =/= creation. Are you also claiming that the United States created syphilis? (For the record, I have never seen any proof to support, nor do I believe, that the United States government would deliberately infect people with HIV.)

Yes. And science is also responsible for antibiotics and preventative/emergency medicine (among other things). These scientific achievements are directly responsible for saving and bettering billions of lives. 99.9% of the people alive today are living better/longer lives as a direct result of science.

You're not even trying any more...

__________________
Calmer than you are...

ASU2003

If you listened to the stupid Rush Limbaugh radio show today, you would of heard him trash all scientists as people who are trying to control the general populace for their own 'far' left agenda.

I would like to see the scientific evidence that says there won't be any impact if the Earth gets warmer or that increasing greenhouse gases (and associated particles) don't harm the quality of life. Let's see their model if we do nothing but drill, burn, and waste.

SecretMethod70

Alt text: "I mean, what's more likely -- that I have uncovered fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more? Hint: it's the one that involves less work."

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Baraka_Guru

Ha! This is brilliant.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Ourcrazymodern?

Power flows to the numbers. So much of what science does is invisible to so many that it might as well be magic or otherwise natural. Society can't protect itself from itself if it doesn't realize it needs to. Fear and superstition are powerful motivators. Science could become a scary god.

Personally, I think you can't argue productively with ignorance. It seems to be on the increase. IQ tests to vote might help a little.

Scary God Science might accomplish more.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

raptor9k

deleted

gondath

It seems to me that people are distrusting the sources of scientific information and not science itself. Not everyone has the time and inclination to go sifting through pages and pages of research material just to get an objective and balanced viewpoint on a subject. Some people are swayed more by the personal charisma or perceived honesty of a source than the words written on a piece of paper by somebody they have never heard of.

Plus, people are really lazy and easily led one way or the other. The political grandstanding of various scientific claims isn't helping much either. Politicians aren't very popular right now.