Difference between revisions of "Talk:Human Immunodeficiency Virus"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(haphazard, incomplete, and biased)
Line 18: Line 18:
  
 
I see the first paragraph of the article has been vandalized.[[User:Panini|Panini]] 12:55, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
 
I see the first paragraph of the article has been vandalized.[[User:Panini|Panini]] 12:55, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
==Full rewrite==
 +
 +
The article alternates between too much detail and not enough. It's almost like an attempt to be so disgusting that no one will want to read it.
 +
 +
It does not say much about how HIV was discovered, particularly the crucial aspect of if and when the virus was isolated. Do we have a picture of it, or is its existence merely inferred?
 +
 +
This brings me to the whole reappraisal issue. Some people whose work I respect in other areas of scholarship have indicated that they are unconvinced by the mainstream viewpoint. One has two biology Ph.D.s, and the other has a religion Ph.D. but is an experienced editor (of a print magazine).
 +
 +
The arguments I've read in favor of HIV's existence, and in favor of the theory that HIV causes AIDS, do not seem convincing to me. The argument boils down to: "We scientists are really sure about it, so stop asking questions. Besides, there's a crisis and we must act now." There are two problems with this kind of argument.
 +
 +
It's precisely the same argument as that given for the [[global warming theory]] that human activities such as burning fossil fuels are causing excessive and harmful warming of the atmosphere. First, it involves an [[appeal to authority]], rather than laying out the evidence. Science is not complicated. Any 10-year-old can understand that whether a hypothesis is confirmed or contradicted by evidence. The '''essence''' of successful research is [[scientific skepticism]]. Second, they are telling skeptics to shut up: labeling objections as "tendentious" and refusing [[scientific debate]]. Third, they pretend that the urgent need for action trumps the need to be sure about just what action should be taken. It doesn't make sense to spend billions of dollars on trying to prove something and nothing at all double-checking. A significant amount of funds should go into research which attempts to the theory. In science, "[[falsification]]" does not mean creating a false document but rather discovering facts which contradict a hypothesis or theory. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:23, 8 January 2009 (EST)

Revision as of 07:23, 8 January 2009

Reference section needs to be cleaned up. ColinR 05:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Entire article could use a little formatting clean-up. ColinR 06:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
This entire article is taken from Wikipedia and contains liberally slanted citations which dangerously and irresponsibly underestimate the transmissability of HIV infection. --BillOReillyFan 22:35, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Appeal for sources

I've been seeking sources about HIV transmissability from reputable Christian scientists that reflect the true risks unprotected sex. I am completely failing, however. --BillOReillyFan 23:37, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I will find you statistics. I should have them up soon.

Palmd001 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I added a bunch of transmission risk stats, i hope it's helpful. BTW, Bill, the religion of the scientist is irrelevant, as long as the information is accurate. Palmd001 15:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I know who you are, Dr. Bauer (assuming it's you) and I know it's important to you, but if you wish to discuss fringe theories please feel free to do it here before adding to the article, that way it can be hashed out first. We may also wish to start a separate page for you. ThanksPalmd001 16:27, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I see the first paragraph of the article has been vandalized.Panini 12:55, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Full rewrite

The article alternates between too much detail and not enough. It's almost like an attempt to be so disgusting that no one will want to read it.

It does not say much about how HIV was discovered, particularly the crucial aspect of if and when the virus was isolated. Do we have a picture of it, or is its existence merely inferred?

This brings me to the whole reappraisal issue. Some people whose work I respect in other areas of scholarship have indicated that they are unconvinced by the mainstream viewpoint. One has two biology Ph.D.s, and the other has a religion Ph.D. but is an experienced editor (of a print magazine).

The arguments I've read in favor of HIV's existence, and in favor of the theory that HIV causes AIDS, do not seem convincing to me. The argument boils down to: "We scientists are really sure about it, so stop asking questions. Besides, there's a crisis and we must act now." There are two problems with this kind of argument.

It's precisely the same argument as that given for the global warming theory that human activities such as burning fossil fuels are causing excessive and harmful warming of the atmosphere. First, it involves an appeal to authority, rather than laying out the evidence. Science is not complicated. Any 10-year-old can understand that whether a hypothesis is confirmed or contradicted by evidence. The essence of successful research is scientific skepticism. Second, they are telling skeptics to shut up: labeling objections as "tendentious" and refusing scientific debate. Third, they pretend that the urgent need for action trumps the need to be sure about just what action should be taken. It doesn't make sense to spend billions of dollars on trying to prove something and nothing at all double-checking. A significant amount of funds should go into research which attempts to the theory. In science, "falsification" does not mean creating a false document but rather discovering facts which contradict a hypothesis or theory. --Ed Poor Talk 08:23, 8 January 2009 (EST)