I am disgusted with this entire epidemic of hysterics. I expect better of government officials (US officials) who have not made an effort to clarify these facts.

"crying wolf once to often". This amounts to a monumental fraud, which could have serious consequences when charitable impulses of the public are abused.

I don't know where you got the idea that men cannot get aids from women. If there is an open sore of any kind in the pubic area aids can be transfered. Yes the odds are slimmer than man to woman transfer but its possible none-the-less.

Perhaps Africa has a higher rate of other STD's that cause open sores and thus help the spread.

Ruprecht is correct. According to Michael Fumento, author of the very-nearly-supressed Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, there is a very high rate of other STDs in Africa that make men susceptible to HIV infection.

Another factor seems to be unsanitary blood-related practices by witch doctors. And it doesn't help that many African men believe that the cure for AIDS is to have sex with a virgin.

Also, Orrin is right about homosexuality. Several African governments claim that there are "no" homosexuals in their countries, which is obviously b.s.

India has excatly the same problem, with entire villages where young girls are raised to be prostitutes to service the cross-country trucking routes. They 'work' from age 14 or so to age 35 and then retire. The inner-city brothels are basically rape rooms, where the women (girls) are forced to see 40 to 50 men a night.

Difficult to believe that de-population is not in that future.

I sent that piece to Orrin because I'd never seen a discussion of where the African AIDS numbers come from before.

As for India, Jim, if you can get ahold of it, I recommend a picture book called "Falkland Road." Pictures of Indian whorehouses. They're kind of unisex.

A major factor in the heterosexual transmission of HIV in southern and eastern Africa (but to a much smaller extent in western Africa) is the practice of "dry sex" -- the use of dessicants to increase friction -- which leads to genital sores, which increases viral transmission.

In our debates on evolution/religion, our materialists often make the point that science is self-correcting and that scientists are mostly Diogenes-like characters who will readily and willingly discard previous conclusions in the face of new evidence. This is a great example of how tenuous that assumption is. Science exists in a world of institutional bureaucracies, competitive contracts, funding competitions and invested reputations The idea that a science PH.D innoculates against personal interest and wishful thinking is absurd.

But it goes deeper than that. Scientists and progressives, who generally see themselves as disdaining myth, religion, tradition, etc. and answering only the call of "objective" truth, invest so much identity into their beliefs and causes that they often reach the point where evidence of error or improvement will challenge their whole sense of identity and meaning. They react every bit as viscerally defiant as the small-minded fundamentalist whose kids trumpet Darwin at him. Note how angry this guy's wife and friends became at simple fact checking. Note Dawkins' apoplectic tirades against religion. These are hardly the reactions of cool, dispassionate, inquiring minds. They are the reactions of fallible humans who simply cannot bear the thought that they are not repositories of ultimate truth.

Tell an environmentalist that global warming is not as threatening as we thought and you will make an enemy. Show a feminist conclusive evidence that the lot of women is improving and she will dismiss you loudly as a dangerous misogynist. Tell an Aids activist that sex causes Aids and that fidelity will eradicate it and you find yourself accused of wanting to stone adulterers.

More evidence that reason and science are faiths.

(Thanks, Harry--great article)

Peter:
You have set up a bit of a straw-man.

Science is self-correcting. Not instantly, not without resistance from entrenched attitudes, not without rancor. And no advocate of rational inquiry would suggest otherwise.

But it is most certainly self-correcting. Take OJ's favored club against evolution, the Peppered Moth. At one time the bedrock proof of evolution, it is now seen as a classic example of what pre-conceived conclusions and faulty scientific method can lead to.

Who uncovered it? Scientists. In hindsight, the evidence should have sealed the case against the Peppered Moth straightaway. Factor in human nature, and it took 20 years.

Feminists and AIDS activists are no more scientists than is a Pat Robertson. Just as any environmentalist so emotionally wedded to global warming as to reject out of hand any contradictory evidence has given up any claims to be a scientist.

Rational inquiry is a process, not a person.

BTW, if you want to read a really fascinating series of articles about the science behind global warming, go to intellicast.com.

Particularly if you want to unburden yourself of some environmentalist acquainances.

Peter:

Jeff is starting his own Inquisition soon to banish heretics claiming to the mantle of Science--only he's allowed to determine who's a scientist, like Harry gets to declare who's a Darwinist.

Jeff:

That is a very self-serving "heads I win, tails you lose" defence of science. I presume you would laugh me out of court if I tried to say that the fevered Christian mobs that attacked Jews in the Middle Ages were no more Christian than their pagan ancestors and that one can only judge Christianity by the words of the gospels and learned theologians I particularly like.

Sorry, Jeff, you are hiding in the cocoon of some imaginary lab. Our whole society operates mainly under the guiding impetus of material truth and rationalism. Some advocates are trained scientists, some are acolytes who take their words and act on them. But it is a human package and you musn't be allowed to evade the practical (and reasonably forseeable)consequences of your beliefs by saying there is some pure "objective" truth out there and you have no responsibility for the actions of those who share your views, aimed for it, but missed.

BTW, unless you are putting yourself forward as one of the learned scientic elite you look to for guidance(you may be, but I'm assuming not), why, on the basis of your own argument, should we listen to anything you say?

Peter:
You appeared to allege rational inquiry is not a self-correcting process. I gave an example that, warts and all, clearly demonstrated it is. Of the examples you posed, only an environmentalist could plausibly be considered pursuing rational inquiry. Environmentalists make material claims subject to material analysis, which means their claims will ultimately stand or fall materially, right? And they are also human, which means they may very well attach quasi-religious significance to their environmentalism. (per Crichton's speech).

And we all know what happens when you question someone's religious convictions.

So, no, it wasn't a self serving argument. Off hand, I doubt I could have picked an example that put rational inquiry in a worse light, or struck more directly at a theory that I happen to believe has some coherent truth value. So, if my argument is wrong, please contradict it. Find an example of the fruit of rational inquiry people still cling to despite having been manifestly contradicted. And, no, evolution doesn't count, because, while not conclusively proven, it certainly has not been contradicted.

Regarding theologians and gospels. Do you believe every word in the Bible? Is that even possible, given that some parts contradict others? If not, how do you choose which to put aside? How do you choose which theologians to like? If both claim divine correctness, how do you distinguish between them?

I think I clearly indicated rational inquiry is a human endeavor. As for the rest, I'm not sure I ever said there is some pure, objective truth that is knowable to us (and, in fact, I am certain I have said such a thing is absolutely unattainable). And I'm not at all certain how I could be bear responsibility for the actions of those who I have never met, simply because I happen to agree with a process which they claim to adhere to.

Why should you listen to anything I have to say, despite not being anything like an elite scientist? For the same reason I listen to you, because, despite not (apparently) being an elite theologian or philosopher, you have interesting things to say regarding theology and society.

Of course, not being you, I couldn't possibly know if you actually find what I write interesting.

OJ:
Would you conclude feminists & AIDS activists are scientists? If so, I'm sure you can point out to me how my categorization was in error. And, if not, what is your point?

No, no, you misunderstand. I find you very interesting, if hopelessly misguided. But I also understand you to be saying that if science proves something right, eureka!. If it is wrong, it is not science. You disavow completely non-scientists who claim to accept what science says, which is why I asked the question.

You see, when Christians are evil and wrong, we don't run away by saying they weren't really Christian. We may say they were wrong or worese, but we don't assuage our consciences by kicking them out of the club ex post facto.

Peter:
The limits of this format leave me unsure of that you are getting at.

Rational inquiry is a process with fairly distinct and obvious requirements. An AIDS activist is unlikely to be pursuing rational inquiry, and to the extent of ignoring solid contradictory evidence, certainly is not.

When a Christian uses the gospel to justify something you as a Christian find abhorrent, what do you do?

Fumento, mentioned above, and Robert Ehrlich, whose books "8 Crazy Ideas" and "9 Preposterous Propositions" I recommended last week book note that in the soft sciences (that includes most of medicine), the standards of scientific statistics are much, much lower than in the hard sciences. Order so magnitude lower.

In particle physics, accuracy to one part in 10 billion is an achieved goal. In most medical experiments, statistical "significance" is perceived at the .95 confidence level (2 standard deviations from the mode).

That's not much, but the experiments are constrained, the systems are far more complex than anything a hard scientist deals with, and it is much harder to screen out variables.

It follows that those making assessments of that type of data ought to be much more wary about what is being found. Humans being human, we tend not to do that.

The approach is not in itself less scientific, but it is less persuasive. Blame God. We have to experiment on what he left.

Most of the noise about AIDS is not made by scientists, by the way, but by political activists, many of whom are frankly scornful of science. "Impure Science" showed this a few years ago.

Jeff:

I tell him he is wrong. I don't tell him he isn't a Christian.

Maybe you don't, Peter, but the history of Christianity shows plenty of examples of those who do.

Science is a continuing enterprise, as is religion. Religion has been going on a lot longer but has come to fewer solid conclusions, if any.

Nobody, no matter how skeptical, is challenging the Law of Conservation of Momentum. But in any field of science that shows up on the blog, there is plenty of room for maneuver. Otherwise, it wouldn't show up here.

Many subjects are uncertain because insufficient data are available. That's the case with global warming.

Others lack an adequate theoretical treatment, like gravity, though only a few people deny that it has been observed.

Others are just a mess, with contradictory data, competing plausible theories. AIDS is in that category.

Harry:

I deny it. There's no such thing as an isolated system. There was nothing and then an external force imparted momentum. That force can change the momentum at will.

Peter:
What did the Church call the Albigensians?

OJ:
That force has apparently yet to do so.

The Big Bang occurred, no?

Since then.

You are alone in denying it, and, more to the point, you cannot show where it does not operate.

There was nothing and then there was something. Thus was momentum created by an external force.

And it's conserved.

"Thus was momentum created by an external force"

So that means not only you know what created the momentum, but how.

Unless you don't know the how end of it. In which case, you really don't know either.

Which makes that statement a classic conclusion from ignorance.

Conservation is conserved now.

In the version of Big Bang that posits a singularity, there is no good hypothesis about what, if anything, goes with momentum.

There is another version of Big Bang/Big Crunch that does not involve a singularity, and for that one momentum is not a problem.