Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 42:
Line 42: − + + + + +
Talk:Scientific controversy over the cause of AIDS (view source)
Revision as of 21:12, January 8, 2009
, 21:12, January 8, 2009→Debating: How science works
::It's probably more important to debunk (or at least summarize) the work of [[Peter Duesberg]], the scientist who isolated the first [[cancer gene]] and mapped the genetic structure of [[retrovirus]]es. [http://www.duesberg.com/index.html] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:17, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::It's probably more important to debunk (or at least summarize) the work of [[Peter Duesberg]], the scientist who isolated the first [[cancer gene]] and mapped the genetic structure of [[retrovirus]]es. [http://www.duesberg.com/index.html] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:17, 7 January 2009 (EST)
:::I agree with Ed. Just listing the scientists does not explain why they have issue with the HIV/AIDS relationship. A person can make the claim that he or she does believe that chlorophyll is what makes the leaves of plants green, however without providing a reason for their belief it is all but impossible to show why it may be false.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:42, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:::I agree with Ed. Just listing the scientists does not explain why they have issue with the HIV/AIDS relationship. A person can make the claim that he or she does believe that [[chlorophyll]] is what makes the leaves of plants green, however without providing a reason for their belief it is all but impossible to show why it may be false.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:42, 8 January 2009 (EST)
::What we're drifting towards is a recap of what science is, how it works, and the 'gold standard' of ensuring that a scientific theory or hypothesis has been confirmed or disproved. All I know about science is that frequently the solution to problem B is ofter discovered by someone who was trying to solve problem A; it's not always a matter of carefully trying every possibility (who has [[Edison]]'s patience? And that all too often an early pioneer had an answer but other scientists would refuse to examine his work; the [[Semmelweiss]] affair is the classic example, but [[plate tectonics]] had a two decade delay. Then there's the bandwagon problem, where the mainstream all jump on one idea and tell the whole world it's proved ... when it's really not.
::I don't know if any of us know enough, or are good enough writers, to be able to point out the difference between good science and [[junk science]] in all cases. But I'd like us to try to write an article that describes the difference in general. We could list the criteria, perhaps, which distinguish a scientific theory from pseudoscience. If the theory proponent refuses to concede that there's any way to prove him wrong, that should be a red flag. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:12, 8 January 2009 (EST)
==Koch's postulates not met?==
==Koch's postulates not met?==
Perhaps such a test is beyond medical science today. Still, the only way anyone could be convinced is if human tissue (e.g., a few live adult human cells donated from an adult) were infected in a laboratory environment and the effects of the HIV virus could be demonstrated to cause immuno-deficiency. The problem appears to be that there is no evidence of the HIV virus infection in the absence of any other possible AIDS causing mechanism. There are always other agents present in the disease vector. And it would be ethically impossible to inject a medically purified HIV virus sample into a human to test for such things. That sort of nightmare only happens in disease-of-the-week movies I hope. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 00:23, 8 January 2009 (EST)
Perhaps such a test is beyond medical science today. Still, the only way anyone could be convinced is if human tissue (e.g., a few live adult human cells donated from an adult) were infected in a laboratory environment and the effects of the HIV virus could be demonstrated to cause immuno-deficiency. The problem appears to be that there is no evidence of the HIV virus infection in the absence of any other possible AIDS causing mechanism. There are always other agents present in the disease vector. And it would be ethically impossible to inject a medically purified HIV virus sample into a human to test for such things. That sort of nightmare only happens in disease-of-the-week movies I hope. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 00:23, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:RickD, Koch's Postulates have been met, look at the main article.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:40, 8 January 2009 (EST)
:RickD, Koch's Postulates have been met, look at the main article.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:40, 8 January 2009 (EST)