I was thinking of creating a new thread for the following short essay, but I think it might be best to post it here:
Will the real Flat-earth, no-Moon-landing, UFO, JFK, 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts please stand up?
I took a look at some of the videos on youtube.com that were made by "HIV/AIDS dissidents," and one thing I saw (not surprisingly) were "negative" comments that did not address the science, but instead called the person who posted the video a "conspiracy nut" of one kind or another. As a scholar, my first thought is to simplify the discussion; otherwise, focus can be lost. The first and most obvious thing that is required is to establish assessment criteria. Then, we might be able to answer the key question, which is, what do these and other kinds of "nutty" people have in common?
Clearly, we must dismiss things like "name calling" or attempts to bring up unrelated topics or facts (for example, trying to undermine a scientist's credibility because he sometimes likes to go surfing in his spare time). Next, we need to agree on what we are seeking. In the case of "HIV/AIDS," we should be dealing with a purely scientific issue. In science, the best a claim can ever be is a "theory," and a theory can always be tested, just as Einstein's relativity still is. If it "fails" the test, then either the test was flawed or the theory is, and if the theory is, it has been refuted. There is no reason to criticize anyone who wants to know what the "HIV/AIDS" claim is, or who doesn't understand something about it and asks those who support it for clarification or explanation.
So we can now turn our attention back to the key question. Various "nuts" make claims, and will often say that they "believe" in something, such as ghosts, because of certain experiences they have had or because of something they consider to be "evidence." They have the legal right to say these things, but this has nothing to do with the scientific method. Even if there is "evidence" that appears to support a claim there is no reason to stop there. A theory requires that all evidence supports it, and no evidence contradicts it. Are there peculiarities about the circumstances surrounding JFK's assassination? Of course, and I'd start with how such shoddy security did not even result in anyone being reprimanded - that alone was a disgrace. Is it evidence of a conspiracy? At this point, one would have to establish that the shoddy security that day was highly unusual. Now let's say we have determined (that is, we have strong evidence) that it was very unusual; what we now have is something worth investigating further, but we still don't have solid evidence of a conspiracy. We can say that there was either incompetence that should have been met with appropriate consequences or something else, such as a conspiracy. In either case, we can demand a response, but we cannot assume that if we don't get a reasonable, apt response that we can conclude that there was a conspiracy.
Though the JFK assassination is not subject to the scientific method, it does provide insight into how curiosity can turn into "nutty" behavior, which is what seems to have happened with "HIV/AIDS." I won't address the science (or lack thereof) of "HIV/AIDS" here, because I address this in great detail in other places on this site, but what does need to be stressed here is that it is the responsibility of the "HIV/AIDS" claimants to put forth a specific hypothesis, including what they feel is the strongest evidence for it. They also need to address the evidence (and undeniable facts) that appears to directly contradict it. By not doing so, they are actually the people who most closely resemble "conspiracy nuts," not the "dissidents." They tell us that they "believe" and that we must "believe," just as a cult leader might claim, because they "have evidence." When one examines their "evidence," one sees that it's not much better (and may be worse) that the "JFK conspiracy nut's" claim that the shoddy security on that day was "evidence of a conspiracy." Think about what some of their claims are, for example, a virus killed people in 18 months or less in the early to mid 1980s, but now this same virus kills in about 7 to 9 years (this is for people who don't take the "medicine"). Is this any better than some of the things you've heard people who believe in ghosts claim? I'd say it's worse, because it is basically asking us to toss our common sense out the proverbial window, and we aren't even given a reason why we are being asked to do this. Instead, if we ask why, they try to demonize us, calling us "Holocaust deniers" and the like, when the Holocaust has absolutely nothing to do with this, and is not even a scientific topic (and nobody, to my knowledge, is denying the reality of immune system disorders - the question is the cause of those disorders).
While the "HIV/AIDS" claimants share certain attributes of the "conspiracy nuts," it's important to note that they are much more dangerous. They tell people to take highly toxic "medicines" for years or decades, because they think certain "markers" mean the person is "infected" with a "deadly virus" that used to take a year to kill, but now takes nearly a decade to do so. If you criticize them or even ask them to explain themselves, they say that you are dangerous, because people who are "infected with HIV" may not take their "medicine," yet if they are wrong, they are responsible for killing people - that is undeniable. They are responsible because they refuse to test their claim, as is required of the scientific method. As of today, there are many "HIV negative" people who are willing to "be infected with HIV" in order to demonstrate that the "HIV/AIDS" claim is false. However, because the "HIV/AIDS" claimants refuse to put forth a specific hypothesis, even if "HIV negative" people were "infected" as part of a voluntary experiment, and took no "medicine," there is no way to know what would constitute refutation of the "HIV/AIDS" claim, and the claimants could always generate some sort of lame excuse for their failure, as they have been doing ever since making the "HIV/AIDS" claim (for example, there have been various promises of an "HIV vaccine," and the world was supposed to have one by the mid 1980s).
"HIV/AIDS" claimant, don't stand up - you are not worthy of being categorized with the various "nuts." Your "nuttiness" seems to have more to do with profits, career advancement, a lack of intellectual curiosity, or perhaps even various and severe personality disorders. |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
