View Single Post
Old 10-21-2009, 08:22 PM
EireEngineer's Avatar
EireEngineer EireEngineer is offline
Woo Nemesis
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Posts: 583
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax

Originally Posted by Out of the Box View Post
It doesn't change the facts that some scientists with controversial views like Peter Duesberg (known for his controversial theory on HIV and AIDS), Albert Hofmann (inventor of LSD and supporter of the legal use of LSD as medicine for the soul), Arthur Butz (Holocaust revisionist), Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist and critical expert on Jewish culture), J Philippe Rushton (psychologist specialised in intelligence and racial differences) or Tomislav Sunic (anticapitalist, anticommunist and antimulticulturalist political scientist) are not given an oportunity to publish their work not because the quality is poor but because the conclusion of their research is just too controversial for academia too handle. Modern science has been dilluded by an malign ideology that got hold of Western society during the late '60s. As such, some areas of science has returned to dogma on a way reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

It is only on some specific areas that science becomes dogmatic and political within academia. With regards to technology, censorship tends to be fairly mild in comparison with the heavily politicised social sciences.

What about controversial websites that do provide a list of verifiable sources? What about video footage that shows us some controversial facts? Can they be ignored too, just because the mainstream rejects them?

The Internet doesn't always offer poor quality, just like peer reviews don't always offer scientific fact. Real life isn't as black-and-white as you like to pretend it is.

Maybe because he calling himself an engineer and some of the arguments he makes could suggest he's one of those many arrogant self-proclaimed "sceptics" who love to "debunk" controversial theories using peer-reviewed propaganda by quoting unreliable mainstream sources like parrots and ignoring other people's arguments because they're quoting from a highly reputated mainstream source whereas the others are just quoting from some website, some Internet video or some book by a fairly unknown author... of course regardless of the quality of the sources but only judging by the reputation of the source. These people are both pretentious and arrogant because they are anything but sceptic as they swallow pretty much anything that's mainstream whereas they look down upon those who actually are sceptic and question everything (in this case both "conspiracy theories" and mainstream theories)
First of all, its interesting that you say that their work "cannot be published". Obviously you were able to read them, so they must have been published somewhere. Theories that test the normal paradigm crop up all the time in the world of science. If they are testable, the peer review process will fairly quickly eliminate those ideas that are not tenable, and give at least preliminary confirmation to those that are. There is nothing "mainstream" or "non-mainstream" about the process, except of course for those that prefer to forgo the process altogether, like many of those in the flat earth/alternative medicine/conspiracy crowd.
As for your assertion that I will swallow anything thats mainstream, that is a strawman of epic proportions, especially since it seems that many in the "Woo" crowd will swallow anything they see on the internet. The burden of proof for what I will believe is fairly simple, and to a certain point follows closely the scientific method, albeit in somewhat abbreviated form.
1. The idea must be testable and capable of falsification.
2. The idea must conform with what we know about workings of the universe, or be specific in how it modifys our knowledge.
3. The idea must be capable of independant verification.

Until the "Woo" crowd starts observing these principles there will always be skeptics around to challenge them.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
Reply With Quote