>
> I think Justin is right on this one. I, for one, just
> don't know how to conduct a conversation with someone
> who denies the fundamental precepts of the science of
> evolution (creationists) or the science of genetics
> (Lysenko), contrary to the overwhelming weight of all
> available evidence and to the overwhelming consensus
> of the professionally trained scientific community.
could you please tell me who is denying evolution and the science of genetics?
> You are confronting statements of faith which do not
> accept fundamental scientific principles of
> verification and falsification
which statements of faith? how the hell did i reject science.
All one gets is an
> endless repetition of the claim that there are "holes"
i said it once.
> in the theory, and that "many" reputable scientists
> dispute it, as if the constant chanting of such a
> mantra would make it true.
"many" is not most, not even close. if 1,500 people were killed in an earthquake relative to the millions of people who weren't, would it not be legitimate to describe them as "many people" in a brief summary of what happened? please don't be silly. also, i have twice acknowledged that there is indeed a scientific consensus behind the standard theory. do you read, leo, or do you just enjoy being self-righteous?
>
> Compare that to incredibly well-informed, thoughtful
> and analytically precise piece Patrick Bond sent us on
> the situation in South Africa. The situation there
> demonstrates just how deadly this anti-scientific
> obscurantism can be.
again, you have not demonstrated how at least several highly respected, nobel prize winning scientist can be anti-scientific obscurantist?
The the rate of HIV infection and
> AIDS has skyrocketed in the decade since the ANC took
> power precisely because the government failed to
> engage in the one most effective strategy -- more so
> in the context of a third world economy -- education
> about prevention.
the government has quite predictably failed to do anything critical on any front. enough with the histrionics.
Of course, if you don't think HIV
> causes AIDS, then why do any education about
> prevention? Some of the data that comes out of South
> Africa is absolutely horrifying -- projections that,
> with the current rate of infection, progression to
> full-blown disease and mortality, it could become a
> white majority country a few decades down the road.
africa is in a very bad way. people are dying horribly of a lot of things. based on my readings, i don't think that AIDS is one of them.
To
> talk about Mbeki as a "smart, serious cat" given his
> willful blindness in the face of such a catastrophic
> assault on his people is to enter into the world of
> the surreal, IMHO. Whatever his other strengths, he
> has been shown to be a "cat" with one huge case of
> myopia.
yes, in your IMHO...
>
> exposing, the
> notion that science can be reduced to some position of
> power, that there is no autonomy, no logic internal to
> the scientific project as a scientific project, must
> be rejected.
nobody said this? why are you bringing this up?
There is no proletarian or anti-corporate
> science of determining what the etiology of a disease
> is, and the suggestion that there is, will be
> rightfully held up to ridicule.
well, i would say that your faith, ironically enough, in science as practiced by many of our institutions shows how little you know about science and those institutions.
chris niles