View Single Post
  #52  
Old 10-22-2009, 02:07 AM
Out of the Box Out of the Box is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 518
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
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.
These cannot publish in mainstream journals because of the controversial nature of their studies, but they can publish in books or some journals that are not mainstream. Most people (scientists and laymen alike), however, ignore studies that are not published in mainstream journals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
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.
To be able to be subjected to the standard process of peer-review, you first have to be able to publish in peer-reviewed journals. The problem is that many controversial theories are not allowed to be published there not because of the quality of their studies but because of the controversial nature of their studies. As such, these studies are ignored by academia while there should at least be attempts to debunk them scientificly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
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.
The people I mentioned do actively try to get their studies publicated in peer-reviewed journals but they're simply not allowed to. You seem to imply these people choose to stay outside of mainstream science but it's the other way around. It's mainstream science that ignores them due to the controversial nature of their studies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
As for your assertion that I will swallow anything thats mainstream, that is a strawman of epic proportions
I wasn't referring to you but to the kind of people most common among self-proclaimed "sceptics" as I'm pretty sure BlueAngel beliefs you're one of them. If you think I was talking about you, I guess you do indeed fit the description.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
especially since it seems that many in the "Woo" crowd will swallow anything they see on the internet.
True. There's but a small amount of people who're truely sceptical and question both mainstream knowledge and controversial knowledge. Dogmatism and narrowmindedness are common on both sides. Didn't I already mention that before?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
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.
I've encountered many so-called "sceptics" who betray those principles and I've also encountered many so-called "conspiracy theorists" who follow those principles. You like to pretend it's all black-and-white with "sceptics" being rational science-oriented people and "conspiracy theorists" being gullable tin foil hat morons. That's simply idiotic.
Reply With Quote