>Quite besides the point?<
Yes. Quite beside the point. But I so very much weary of efforts to stick to the point (i.e. the point that precipitated this Mullis discussion), I will allow my growing interest of the very subsidiary point of HIV/AIDS itself, to drag me away from it. In fact, I will look up/purchase materials on the matter.
>Mullis has apparently signed on to Duesberg's AIDS theory, which, according to the NYT book review article is quite dubious.<
Interesting. While of course this proves nothing in my mind at this juncture against Mullis' claims (after all, this is what we might expect if he were correct), I am terribly curious as to what his critics are saying.
>Scientists are not in general philosophers, they're problem solvers.<
My lands, this is precisely the problem. Scientists must be philosophers if they desire to solve problems. It is only the philosopher who solves problems. Those who call themselves scientists and who are not philosophers likely create more problems than they solve. In fact, it is the decrease of philosophy in modern science that allows the whole establishment to become locked in paradigms. Now of course logic is itself a paradigm, and there is a reasonable way one can avoid being trapped within it (grin). But I digress.
>Infectious HIV is accepted because, although correlation does not necessarily indicate causation, when you're talking about 100% correlation of AIDS with an infectious agent, the evidence is pretty good.<
Admittedly I have hardly had an interest in AIDS research (but this is changing). Nevertheless I cannot assume because HIV is present 100 percent of the time AIDS develops, that HIV is the AIDS culprit. I detect this is much too simplified, but were it not, then there would exist other possibilities. I'll read up on the topic, and thank you for bringing to mind the name of the scientist.
>The hypothesis has proven useful, and it's not clear what Mullis and Duesberg would propose as an alternative, more useful approach.<
No doubt it has been useful, but its being useful may not justify our calling it a search for an AIDS cure. And we ought not shoot the messengers merely because they give positions that contradict our own. Even were Mullis a bum on the street, were he to submit a certain position, we are not by reason justified in saying "That position stinks because you are a bum!" Lastly, we ought not require one to have an answer to a question in order to be able to criticize a previously submitted answer.
(Blast it! Gotta go.) |
