I officially retract my question to Luskin as it has been answered. When I last asked my question of Luskin in regards to their assertion that the denial of tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez was a matter of "academic freedom", I really wanted an answer to it. My question was:
Mr. Luskin, is it the considered opinion of the DI, UD etc., that it is never acceptable to discriminate against a professor in a tenure decision based on their ideas?
Now, Tara shows me the answer to my question in her post Why deny only one part of science? IDists branch out into AIDS denial.
I think my question is answered, and it is "no".
Now, it's been frequently mentioned on here that prominent IDers Phillip Johnson and Jon Wells have previously stated their "skepticism" of HIV as the cause of AIDS. To their credit, most IDers I know disagree with Johnson and Wells on this point. However, Scot and Cordova buy right into it. Scot:
That said it's not wholly unlikely that HIV is a symptom rather than a cause of AIDS. From my POV 23 years of considering it the cause of AIDS has not moved us any closer to a vaccine. There are two possibilities in that. The first is that the virus is just too insidious but second is that it isn't insidious it's just not the cause so no amount of effort against the virus will prevent the disease. However it does seem incredibly unlikely that AIDS isn't a transmissable disease caused by infectious element of some sort so if not HIV then what is it? The evidence is circumstantial and compelling but the lack of progress in curing AIDS is also compelling evidence that we're on the wrong track.
Incredibly likely? Because we have no vaccine? That means that more than 99% of all infectious diseases, then, aren't infectious.
Cordova, meanwhile:
Even if the dissent is wrong, it would be hard to argue those involved are crackpots. [Cites Kary Mullis, Bernard Forscher and David Rasnick]. Given how I've seen Darwinian evolution promoted and how it has created harmful medical and social practices, it's hard not to be skeptical of all sorts of accepted scientific "truths".
At least they're consistent. With Dembski defending a holocaust denier, their AGW denialism from DaveScot, their general evolution denialism, and now HIV/AIDS denialism from at least 4 prominent IDers, I think it's safe to write of the Discovery Institute and the intelligent design creationist movement as just another clearing house for anti-science and denialism. They clearly wouldn't have a problem with a virology department hiring an HIV/AIDS denier, or a history department hiring a holocaust denier because they simply aren't competent to judge what is good science and what isn't.
Now, people may ask, why is this? Why is there so much overlap between cranks? Why do they not care if a crank has an inconsistent view as long as they're attacking science? For instance, there is no consistency between the various IDers and their beliefs of what intelligent design covers - Behe is a raging "Darwinist" compared to Dembski for instance. Why are they like this?
Well I think our original post on the Unified Theory of the Crank still has the explanation. The fundamental issue is that of competence. Cranks can not make competent scientific arguments. And because people who are incompetent are not capable of recognizing competence in others (discussed in the post), cranks are not competent to judge the scientific arguments of others. Further, they enjoy anything that attacks perceived scientific "orthodoxy" because they figure if one aspect of the orthodoxy can be attacked, why not the orthdoxy they hate so much? They see science as a uniform enemy to be attacked, and any aspect of science that can be brought into question is an advance of their cause because they are fundamentally anti-science. They want their overvalued ideas to be believed by others, and science is in the way. Therefore science itself is the enemy and any attack on any branch of science is to their advantage.
Thanks Tara!
- Log in to post comments
"That said it's not wholly unlikely that HIV is a symptom rather than a cause of AIDS."
This despite the alleviation of symptoms by anti-retrovirals targeting HIV and scads of other evidence pointing to a clear cause-effect relationshipo between HIV and AIDS?
I'm glad Dave and Sal say the dumb things they do about non-ID science issues, because it highlights their global yen for dishonesty and their glaring ignorance. Jesus H. Christ on an atomic pogo stick.
I'm curious why you make the restriction to "science", as in "cannot make competent scientific arguments." Surely denialism is not restricted to scientific issues - historical ones being quite prominent. I mention this because of creationism's denialism going beyond science, and it seems to be a concession to their attempt at "framing" to make it a particularly scientific "controversy".
It looks like the "Discovery" Institute is becoming an affirmative action program for the hard-of-thinking.
TomS,
You're correct, my language was too-specific. Cranks can not make good arguments period. Let alone scientific ones. They are reasoning-incompetent, not just science incompetent.
I think one contributing factor is that it is all part of a crank mental defense mechanism.
Think about how fundies, particularly the really whackadoo-fargone ones, accept the existence of ESP and UFOs and all sorts of woo -- they just think it's all the work of the Devil.
The reason for this is that if they start applying principles of critical thought regarding such things -- what is the evidence for these phenomena, why do people believe them, etc. -- they may come close to the uncomfortable realization that the same could be said for their beliefs. Therefore, it's best to erect defensive walls against all these crank beliefs, effectively making them off-limits to any criticism.
Again it's all a consequence of having the belief first and generating post-hoc rationalizations to support it. So if a crank technique is good enough to support beliefs near and dear to their hearts, then obviously it means that other crank beliefs (that use that technique) are true too!
Luskin may not have time to answer. According to Uncommon Descent, Casey is basking in (self)reflected glory: "The IDURC is proud to name Mr. Casey Luskin, a graduate of the University of California at San Diego, an honorary recipient of the Casey Luskin Graduate Award." Seriously. He gets a hundred bucks and a copy of the new Behe.
Mr. Luskin may not have time to answer. According to Uncommon Descent, Luskin is currently basking in (self)reflected glory: "The IDURC [Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center] is proud to name Mr. Casey Luskin, a graduate of the University of California at San Diego, an honorary recipient of the Casey Luskin Graduate Award." Seriously. He gets a hundred bucks and a copy of the new Behe.
Sorry about the double post: my error.
HAHAHAHA, oh man, I love it. Every day, the crew at UD reminds me more and more of Strongbad and The Cheat in their rinkydink attempts at self-aggrandizement.
Besides, there's no way the Luskin award is as prestigious as the Minimalist Super-Awesome Coolguy Award. The trophy is three feet high, topped by a guy on a dirtbike popping a wheelie while flipping both birds, and it plays Iron Maiden's "Powerslave" every hour on the hour. Now THAT's classy!
Plus there's the drama and pageantry that surrounds the annual award ceremony. For the past five years straight, minimalist has had a lock on the award, but I hear there's a sassy young up-and-comer by the name of minimalist who just might snatch it this year! Oh, what an upset that'll be!
"Jesus H. Christ on an atomic pogo stick"
I LOVE this! Oh man, I about wet my pants over that one. My favorite creative invocation of Bro J up to this point, courtesy of South Park, was "Jesus tap-dancing Christ", but I think it's been replaced.
Meanwhile, they are keeping the name of the graduate recipient of the award, Hannah Maxson, a secret because: