Science Guardian

(show)

Positive Atheism’s Big List of

Bertrand Russell

Quotations

Bertrand Arthur William Russell [Third Earl Russell] (1872-1970)

British philosopher, mathematician, social critic, writer

It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions make it impossible to earn a living.

– Bertrand Russell, Skeptical Essays (1928) †â€

My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true. Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.

– Bertrand Russell, “Is There a God?” commissioned by, but never published in, Illustrated Magazine (1952: repr. The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Volume 11: Last Philosophical Testament, 1943-68, ed. John G. Slater and Peter Köllner (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 543-48, quoted from S. T. Joshi, Atheism: A Reader

I mean by intellectual integrity the habit of deciding vexed questions in accordance with the evidence, or of leaving them undecided where the evidence is inconclusive. This virtue, though it is underestimated by almost all adherents of any system of dogma, is to my mind of the very greatest social importance and far more likely to benefit the world than Christianity or any other system of organized beliefs.

– Bertrand Russell, “Can Religion Cure Our Troubles?” (1954)

It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.

– Bertrand Russell, from from “An Outline of Intellectual

Rubbish” in the collection, Unpopular Essays

Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.

– Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays, “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish” (1950), p. 149, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence; and in this respect ministers of religion follow gospel authority more closely than in some others.

– Bertrand Russell, quoted, in part, from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations

One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it.

– Bertrand Russell, “Why I Am Not A Christian,” Little Blue Book No. 1372 edited by E. Haldeman-Julius.

The essence of the liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment. This is the way opinions are held in science, as opposed to the way in which they are held in theology.

– Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays, “Philosophy and Politics” (1950), p. 149, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.

– Bertrand Russell, “Christian Ethics” from Marriage and Morals (1950), quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

Dogma demands authority, rather than intelligent thought, as the source of opinion; it requires persecution of heretics and hostility to unbelievers; it asks of its disciples that they should inhibit natural kindness in favor of systematic hatred.

– Bertrand Russell, quoted from Laird Wilcox, ed., “The Degeneration of Belief”

Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false.

– Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays, “Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind” (1950), p. 149, quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

The degree of one’s emotion varies inversely with one’s knowledge of the facts — the less you know the hotter you get.

– Bertrand Russell (attributed: source unknown)

[Regarding] the convention that clergymen are more virtuous than other men. Any average selection of mankind, set apart and told that it excels the rest in virtue, must tend to sink below the average.

– Bertrand Russell, “Religion and the Churches” (1916), quoted from Annie Laurie Gaylor, Betrayal of Trust: Clergy Abuse of Children (1988)

Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.

– Bertrand Russell (attributed: source unknown)

The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic.

– Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays, “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish” (1950), quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

Heretical views arise when the truth is uncertain, and it is only when the truth is uncertain that censorship is invoked.

– Bertrand Russell, “The Value Of Free Thought,” quoted from Laird Wilcox, ed., “The Degeneration of Belief”

The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed, the passion is the measure of the holder’s lack of rational conviction.

– Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays “On the Value of Skepticism” (1950), quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

It is permissible with certain precautions to speak in print of coitus, but it is not permissible to employ the monosyllabic synonym for this word.

– Bertrand Russell, in the spirit of H. L. Mencken’s quip, “It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry.” (attributed: source unknown)

William James used to preach “the will to believe”. For my part, I should wish to preach “the will to doubt”. What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite.

– Bertrand Russell (attributed: source unknown)

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

– Bertrand Russell, “Is There a God?” commissioned by, but never published in, Illustrated Magazine (1952: repr. The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Volume 11: Last Philosophical Testament, 1943-68, ed. John G. Slater and Peter Köllner (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 543-48, quoted from S. T. Joshi, Atheism: A Reader

That is the idea — that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called Ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.

– Bertrand Russell, “Why I Am Not A Christian,” Little Blue Book No. 1372 edited by E. Haldeman-Julius.

The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men…. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages.

– Bertrand Russell, “Why I Am Not A Christian,” Little Blue Book No. 1372 edited by E. Haldeman-Julius.

My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others.

– Bertrand Russell, “Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?”

Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cosy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor all their own.

– Bertrand Russell, What I Believe ‡‡

I was told that the Chinese said they would bury me by the Western Lake and build a shrine to my memory. I have some slight regret that this did not happen, as I might have become a god, which would have been very chic for an atheist.

– Bertrand Russell, The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell (1967-1969), quoted from Encarta Book of Quotations (1999)

Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand-in-hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by the help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

– Bertrand Russell, “Why I Am Not A Christian,” Little Blue Book No. 1372 edited by E. Haldeman-Julius

Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind…. This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me.

– Bertrand Russell, “What I Have Lived For,” the prologue to his Autobiography, vol. I. p. 4

My whole religion is this: do every duty, and expect no reward for it, either here or hereafter.

– Bertrand Russell, childhood diary, quoted from Against the Faith by Jim Herrick

What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite.

– Bertrand Russell, Skeptical Essays (1928)

United with his fellow-men by the strongest of all ties, the tie of a common doom, the free man finds that a new vision is with him always, shedding over every daily task the light of love. The life of Man is a long march through the night, surrounded by invisible foes, tortured by weariness and pain, towards a goal that few can hope to reach, and where none may tarry long. One by one, as they march, our comrades vanish from our sight, seized by the silent orders of omnipotent Death. Very brief is the time in which we can help them, in which their happiness or misery is decided. Be it ours to shed sunshine on their path, to lighten their sorrows by the balm of sympathy, to give them the pure joy of a never-tiring affection, to strengthen failing courage, to instil faith in hours of despair. Let us not weigh in grudging scales their merits and demerits, but let us think only of their need — of the sorrows, the difficulties, perhaps the blindnesses, that make the misery of their lives; let us remember that they are fellow-sufferers in the same darkness, actors in the same tragedy as ourselves. And so, when their day is over, when their good and their evil have become eternal by the immortality of the past, be it ours to feel that, where they suffered, where they failed, no deed of ours was the cause; but wherever a spark of the divine fire kindled in their hearts, we were ready with encouragement, with sympathy, with brave words in which high courage glowed.

– Bertrand Russell, “A Free Man’s Worship” (originally “The Free Man’s Worship,” December, 1903)

The forms of zest are innumerable. Sherlock Holmes, it may be remembered, picked up a hat which he happened to find lying in the street. After looking at it for a moment he remarked that its owner had come down in the world as the result of drink and that his wife was no longer so fond of him as she used to be. Life could never be boring to a man to whom casual objects offered such a wealth of interest. Think of the different things that may be noticed in the course of a country walk. One man may be interested in the birds, another in the vegetation, another in the geology, another in the agriculture, and so on. Any one of these things is interesting if it interests you, and, other things being equal, the man who is interested in any one of them is better adapted to the world than the man who is not interested.

– Bertrand Russell, The Conquest of Happiness, p. 95

Are you never afraid of God’s judgment in denying him?

“Most certainly not. I also deny Zeus and Jupiter and Odin and Brahma, but this causes me no qualms. I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence.”

– Bertrand Russell, “What Is an Agnostic?”

What makes a free thinker is not his beliefs, but the way in which he holds them. If he holds them because his elders told him they were true when he was young, or if he holds them because if he did not he would be unhappy, his thought is not free; but if he holds them because, after careful thought, he finds a balance in their favor, then his thought is free, however odd his conclusions may seem.

– Bertrand Russell, “The Value of Free Thought”

There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dares not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed.

– Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics (1954), quoted from James A. Haught, “Breaking the Last Taboo” (1996)

It is no credit to the orthodox that they do not now believe all the absurdities that were believed 150 years ago. The gradual emasculation of the Christian doctrine has been effected in spite of the most vigorous resistance, and solely as the result of the onslaughts of freethinkers.

– Bertrand Russell, “Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?”

There is no excuse for deceiving children. And when, as must happen in conventional families, they find that their parents have lied, they lose confidence in them and feel justified in lying to them.

– Bertrand Russell, Our Sexual Ethics (1936)

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

– Bertrand Russell, “Christian Ethics” from Marriage and Morals (1950), quoted from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it’s still a foolish thing.

– Bertrand Russell (attributed: source unknown)

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

– Bertrand Russell (attributed: source unknown)

There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.

– Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays (1950), quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do.

– Bertrand Russell (attributed: source unknown)

Of course not. After all, I may be wrong.

– Bertrand Russell (attributed), having been asked whether he would be prepared to die for his beliefs, quoted from Encarta® Book of Quotations (1999)

A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

– Bertrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy, quoted from Lee Eisler, ed., The Quotable Bertrand Russell

The good life, as I conceive it, is a happy life. I do not mean that if you are good you will be happy; I mean that if you are happy you will be good.

– Bertrand Russell (attributed: source unknown)

This, however, is a passing nightmare; in time the earth will become again incapable of supporting life, and peace will return.

– Bertrand Russell (attributed: source unknown)

The Subtle Fulmination of the Encircled Sea

Please Feel Free

to Grab a Quote

(or Maybe Three)

Grab some quotes to embellish your web site,

to use as filler for your group’s newsletter,

or to add force to your Letters to the Editor.

Use them to introduce the chapters of a book or

accent the index or margins of a special project.

Poster your wall! Graffiti your (own) fence.

Sticker your car!!

Poster your wall. Graffiti your (own) fence!!!

That’s what this list is for!

That’s why I made it!

In using this resource, however, keep in mind that

it’s someone’s life’s work, a hedge against old age.

If you decide to build your own online

collection, then find some new material!

Dig up quips that haven’t yet been posted!

Biographical sketches, source citations, notes, critical editing, layout, and HTML formatting are copyright ©1996-2004, by Cliff Walker, except where noted.

(show)

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Authoritarian intolerance on campus.

I don’t pretend to be a medical doctor or a biologist. So I have no position on whether HIV causes AIDS or not. But that is not important when it comes to whether or not such debate ought to be allowed.

In any area debate ought to be free. By free, I mean unhampered by government law or regulation. I do not mean that one must respect the opinions of others only respect their rights. Nor is one obligated to help them spread their ideas in any way. It is entirely one of negative obligations: that is one may NOT do things to them but there are no positive obligations to do things FOR them.

This is a foundation of classical liberal thinking. Anyone who helps, promotes or encourages the use of government sanction to punish an individual for expressing a peaceful opinion is not an advocate of human liberty.

Recently I watched the documentary, The Other Side of AIDS, which looked at this debate between respected researchers on both sides of the issue. But one man stood out. Not because of his research but because of his viciousness and authoritarianism. That was Dr. Mark Wainberg of the McGill University AIDS Center.

Wainberg is being interviewed about this debate and he immediately starts demanding to know whether or not the interviewer is a dissident or not. If a dissident then Wainberg will immediately cut off the discussion. He will refuse to answer questions. Worse yet he launches into demands that people who disagree with his view ought to be rounded up and arrested.

Wainberg asks the man if he believes HIV causes AIDS. The interviewer says that is the prevailing view. Wainberg then demands to know “Do you personally believe that HIV causes AIDS.” Now, I couldn’t answer that because I don’t know. I have no medical degree or the scientific knowledge necessary to judge the quality of research. But Wainberg sounded like a theologian, not a serious scientist. He wanted to root out heresy and damn the heretics to some undetermined penalty.

The researcher responds: “I don’t have enough information either way quite honestly.” That’s not good enough for the Grand Inquisitor. “Are you one of the dissidents?” he demands to know. The interviewer says he is not a dissident..This does not satisfy this theologian. “How can you say you don’t have enough information?” Maybe because he is not trained in the fields required for him to make such a judgement. What Cardinal Wainberg is demanding is not that the man make an informed judgement at all. He is demanding that the man agree with him. He is demanding that Wainberg’s view be accepted without evidence. Wainberg tells the man he should have had an opinion formed before doing the interview.

What it means is that Wainberg will only be interviewed by people who already agree with everything he is going to say. Why such a fear? Why such intolerance? Wainberg told the man that unless he already agreed with him he may want to edit his remarks to make him, Wainberg, look foolish. Why? Wainberg was already doing that all on his own.

Then Wainberg issued his fatwa against anyone who dared disagree with him. “Anyone, those who attempts to dispel the notion that HIV is the cause of AIDS are perpetrators of death. And I, would very much, for one, like to see the Constitution of the United States and similar countries have some means in place that we can charge people who are responsible for endangering public health with charges of endangerment and bring them up on trial. I think that people like Peter Duesberg belong in jail.”

“Someone who would perpetrate the notion that HIV is not the cause of AIDS is perhaps motivated by sentiment of pure evil. That such a person may perhaps really want millions of people in Africa, and elsewhere, to become infected by this virus and go on to die of it . Who knows maybe there is a hidden agenda behind the thoughts of a madman, maybe all psychopaths everywhere have ways of getting their views across that are sometimes camouflaged in subterfuge but I suggest to you that Peter Deusberg is probably the closest thing we have in this world to a scientific psychopath.”

Wainberg is seriously unhinged here and perhaps unfit to deal with students. What is really scary here is that at this moment I’m reading How the Idea of Religious Tolerance Came to the West by Perez Zagorin. He discusses the logic of those who burned heretics at the stake and their reasoning. They sound exactly like Wainberg right down to the accusation of the heretics being “pure evil.”

The interviewer made a mistake with this scientific mullah. The interviewer had seen that Wainberg’s irrational statements were all directed at Dr. Peter Deusberg alone. So he mentioned that there are other scientists who take the same position. The mere mention that numerous researchers disagree with this Mad Doctor of McGill was enough. Wainberg gives the man a dirty look and says: “And now this interview is over” and walks out.

My inclination is to go with the scientific consensus in most cases where I don’t think I can draw my own conclusion. But when I see people like Dr. Wainberg acting in such a way, and demanding that their views be legally protected from challenge, then I have to wonder if those who disagree don’t have a real case. This sort of intolerance is so often rooted in a fear that one may be wrong. It is ripe in theology but ought not exist in the academic world. Dr. Wainberg is an embarrassment to his profession and a man with such a passionate hatred for academic freedom that he ought not hold a position at a respected university. He may be right about the medical facts. But he shames his own position when he acts like an academic Stormtrooper. The world will never be a civilized place as long as men sit in university posts who want to imprison others over intellectual differences.

posted by CLS at 3/23/2006 04:45:00 AM

10 Comments (the last one by Francis Bacon blocked by CLS, the otherwise anonymous blogger, who has not made a post since):

Francis Bacon said…

A very excellent post, portraying exactly what happens in this documentary segment, and the conclusion one must draw from it: that Mark Wainberg is exhibiting every sign that he has the unconscious (let’s be charitable) awareness that what he believes is not well justified at all, and he has to bully to keep it from examination.

The only disappointment is that CLS is showing the same symptom as the filmmaker, believing that because he/she is not a scientist or doctor per se, therefore it is beyond his competence to form a view of the issue.

Wrong. Anyone as intelligent as CLS will have no difficulty in following the essential arguments against the idea of HIV as the cause of AIDS, which flouts not only many basic tenets of medicine but also of plain common sense.

Have a look at http://www.NewsAIDSReview.com for a good introduction to the topic. The site ridicules the HIV paradigm as laughable nonsense and the behavior of the scientists who run the field as an embarrassment to science.

Sunday, April 02, 2006 8:57:19 PM

CLS said…

Thank you for the comment, mostly. I have read the arguments on both sides and I honestly do not know enough to form a firm opinion. I would like to see a good debate between the two sides but that is not taking place. But then this is a blog on classical liberalism which itself can draw no conclusion per se. It is about methodology not conclusions. Liberalism advocates free speech and open debate. It supports reason and science. What conclusions come out of that process are not part and parcel of liberalism itself. So it is not my task here to draw conclusion but to defend the process. It is much the same with economics. I support a free market but I don’t try to tell producers what they must produce or who they ought to trade with. It’s the process that concerns this blog.

Sunday, April 02, 2006 9:10:50 PM

Francis Bacon said:

Well, there is a middle ground between the fight for free speech and for opening up debate, which is the main fight in the HIV is/is not the cause of AIDS debate, and the ability and willingness to judge the arguments and evidence from outside the profession of science, which many feel they are not competent to do, as you say you are not.

The in-between area is to make a judgement of some kind as to who is likely to be right, based on behavior. One can reasonably conclude I suggest that those who go bananas if challenged and try to bully or otherwise prevent examination of their arguments, as the appalling Mark Wainberg does, must feel the weakness of their position acutely. Those who welcome free debate may ceteris paribus be taken to be confident of the soundness of their arguments.

If both have more or less equal standing, expertise and intelligence, and are high level in all three, then one can reasonably conclude that the free speech advocates are right in their science, and the ones who try to repress them are wrong.

Then of course there is the question of interests. In this case they are all on one side. The challengers have nothing but self sacrifice to gain out of it, and have to sweat to justify and convey every single point they want to make. Those is charge have high pay, royalties, prestige, media exposure, publication acceptance, prizes.

Another indication of who is probably right.

By the way, you are clearly a philosopher and the business of a philosopher is evaluation of ideas. Get in there. They need smart thinkers to clear up that messy dispute.

Monday, April 03, 2006 6:09:47 AM

CLS said…

Your logic doesn’t work. Wainberg is clearly an ass. But I’ve known people who are right who are intolerant assholes and people who are totally wrong who are pleasant and willing to discuss. Your examples can not be applied across the board. I can think of two individuals who both take similar positions. One is a gentleman who is happy to debate his viewpoints openly. Another is an intolerant, mean, drunk who shouts down his opponents and calls them names. And yet their views do not differ in a significant way. Many individuals have supported capitalism (rightly) yet wanted to silence communists (wrongly). On the other hand there were communists who hated markets (wrongly) yet said they wanted open debate (rightly).

I certainly understand your point. If you read the history of the Reformation you will find that people like Luther and Calvin all debanded free speech when they were in the minority and had no power but demanded censorship when they had the reigns of state in hand. Every statist out of power wants liberalism but return to their core values when they have power.

I just don’t think we can draw conclusions based on this as tempting as it might be.

Monday, April 03, 2006 6:25:00 AM

Mark Biernbaum, PhD said…

I have found, in my own investigative conversations with those in the HIV=AIDS establishment (like the American Academy of HIV Medicine, Gregg Gonsalves of Gay Men’s Health Crisis, and Sean Strub of Poz magazine), that Wainberg’s response is not uncommon — the discussion ends when I admit to skepticism about the HIV=AIDS theory. They all seem a bit like Lady Macbeths to me — methinks they doth protest (against legitimate scientific debate) too much!

Monday, April 03, 2006 9:58:03 PM

CLS said…

Mark: This may be the case but it is not a method by which one can determine truth. And that is the point I’m making. I know people who I know are right on something but intolerant about it and people who I know are wrong on something but open to debate. Whether or not a person is intolerant is not a good measure by determining whether the position they take is correct. Even if there were a high correlation between a lack of tolerance and being wrong it is a faulty method for determing truth. And I was basically being asked to make a scientific conclusion based, not on the science involved (which I do not feel qualified to judge here), but on the personality of the people stacking out the positions. That is something I have to reject.

Monday, April 03, 2006 10:13:57 PM

Francis Bacon said:

“Whether or not a person is intolerant is not a good measure by determining whether the position they take is correct. Even if there were a high correlation between a lack of tolerance and being wrong it is a faulty method for determing truth. And I was basically being asked to make a scientific conclusion based, not on the science involved (which I do not feel qualified to judge here), but on the personality of the people stacking out the positions. That is something I have to reject.”

No, not quite, CLS, you were not asked to determine truth based on this indication, you were asked to note this social behavior as an indication of who felt vulnerable.

We must distinguish between personality warp and social warp, as you correctly and cleverly point out. There may well be all kinds of behavior arising from personality, but to indulge them to block free enquiry is prima facie is an indication that a man is not a good scientist, since a good scientist tries to free scientific discussion from politics and from personality, as far as possible. I presumed you were drawing attention to Wainberg’s behavior not only as an example of crass and foolishly self destructuve behavior, but also because of its social import. Otherwise what was the point of your post?

A situation where the political situation allows a man such as Wainberg, who occupies a responsible position in the science of researching AIDS, to indulge his personal inclination toward cruelty, arrogance and irrationality in public and on camera no less, is a context where something has gone wrong with expected norms, scientific and social. It is not significant as a matter of personality, but it is as a matter of social and professional context which in its permissiveness exhibits the loosening or even abandonment of scientific moorings that the AIDS dominant scientific faction is accused of.

It is the abandonment of scientific standards which has corrupted the field and that is the accusation of its scientific critics and of the few journalists who have an independent view and manage (with difficulty) to get published, the latest and best being Celia Farber’s success in getting a finely honed 12,000 word piece in Harper’s March issue, in which the abandonment of scientific standards in AIDS research was the fundamental point made.

If public behavior such as Wainberg’s was purely a function of personality then journalists would be entirely hamstrung in investigating situations such as the AIDS HIV scene, which now looks very much like a grand scam where the leaders have consciously misled the world for their own benefit. That is to say, for anyone who troubles to read the scientific literature on the topic it is almost inconceivable that people like Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier do not know very well that their enthusiasm for HIV as the cause of AIDS had no scientific justification.

Luckily, however, behavior is significant in detecting what people are up to when they are carrying out concealed mischief, and good journalists detect the signals and sneak around the back to go through the garbage, even though the front door is barred.

Since philosophers are needed to sort out the smokescreen of complicated claims that the paradigm defenders may surround an empty box with, it behooves them not to be naive and think that behavior is driven just by personality, but also reflects social context and that is where the outsider looks first for signals.

NewAIDSReview.org has blogged on this theme today, so if it is wrong and you didn’t mean to make this point, you should go there and correct the impression in a comment.

CLS said…

FB: First be aware you posted the same message three times. Second, try to remain brief or briefer at the very least.

I posted my message not because he refuses to debate or is an ass. I posted it because he called for legal restrictions on people he opposes. That is what I found disgusting. No one is required to enter a debate against their will. And people are free to draw any conclusions they wish. Perhaps he does feel vulnerable but then his own emotional response to his own beliefs are not necessarily evidence for me to make a determination regarding the views he holds. You seem to want me to draw a conclusion on a subject of which I have already said I do not feel qualified to make. Long posts are not about to make me suddenly feel qualified in a field I honestly don’t understand since I have studied almost zero biology in my life. And I am quite happy to say there are fields of which I know nothing and hope to learn from others.

But when it comes to promoting the classical liberal values of a free, rational society, I do know something, including enough to know when not to feel entirely confident about my own views. And so I commented on what I think I do understand and did not comment on that which i don’t feel competent. I don’t see where else we can go on this unless you expect me to invest many, many hours to learn the field and study the positions. I could do that but the benefit of doing so would be miniscule. It won’t make you side much stronger. It won’t make this jerk in Canada suddenly decide he supported freedom of speech. It would divert me from what is important to me to work on something that is clearly important to you. I support freedom of speech and will defend your freedom even if I am not prepared to draw a conclusion. But also remember that means I have not drawn a conclusion for the other side other. I honestly don’t know.

Tuesday, April 04, 2006 9:47:34 AM

nonymous said…

Mark, did Tom Gegeny “protest too much” in your email exchange with him? Did the discussion end when you admitted your skepticism?

Perhaps you, by engaging sincere people like Tom in a fundementally dishonest discourse, are the one who is at fault? Perhaps the people who did not discuss the issue with you sensed this?

Wednesday, April 05, 2006 1:04:13 AM

Francis Bacon said:

CLS I posted three times only because the software did not confirm.

Sorry not to be brief, but I thought you needed things to be spelled out.

Now you say that you are not interested in what lies behind Mark Wainberg’s attempt to suppress dissent, and that you only object to his call for restrictions on free debate.

Fair enough, not for us to tell you what you should be interested in. But you forget what you wrote in your own post:

“But when I see people like Dr. Wainberg acting in such a way, and demanding that their views be legally protected from challenge, then I have to wonder if those who disagree don’t have a real case. This sort of intolerance is so often rooted in a fear that one may be wrong.”

Your post was both brilliantly descriptive and made terrific points. Now you say you don’t have any interest in what lies behind Wainberg’s attitude. But your post shows you are very familiar with the name Peter Duesberg, though you spell it wrongly.

The inconsistency between your expert despatch of Mark Wainberg and your current claim not to be interested or qualified in the issue being debated in the documentary The Other Side of AIDS you bought and watched so attentively is baffling.

What do you use your talent for, if we can ask?

Wednesday, April 05, 2006 1:24:51 PM

(show)

Fears of AIDS ‘Superbug’ Eased

Monday, July 25, 2005

By Charlene Laino

Fears of an AIDS superbug were alleviated Monday when researchers reported that they have homed in on the source of a New York City man’s HIV infection.

Concerns had existed since February when officials from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene announced that a middle-aged man had purportedly been infected with a new and unique strain of HIV — one that resists most medications used to treat HIV and progresses to full-blown AIDS in a fraction of the usual time.

But viral testing shows that the man does not have a unique HIV strain, says Gary Blick, MD, medical and research director of Circle Medicine in Norwalk, Conn.

Rather, the New York City man has the same viral strain as an HIV-infected man in Connecticut, he says. The two men admit having unprotected sex with each other.

“The Connecticut patient’s virus is a 99.5 percent match to the New York City man. They’re essentially identical,” Blick tells WebMD.

Speaking at a meeting of the International AIDS Society, Blick says that the 52-year-old Connecticut man infected the New York City man with a potent viral strain that is resistant to three of the four types of medications used to treat HIV.

Possible New Strain of HIV Investigated

Risky Behavior Blamed for Rapid Progression

One of the major reasons some health officials believed that a new AIDS superbug was in our midst was that the New York City man developed AIDS in less than 20 months, just two months after a positive HIV diagnosis was made.

Normally, progression from HIV to AIDS in an untreated patient takes 7 to 10 years, with death following months after that time.

But since the Connecticut man first tested positive for HIV in 1993, the virus itself does not appear to be responsible for the rapid progression to full-blown AIDS, Blick says.

So why did the New York City man get sick so quickly?

Most likely, his behavior is the culprit, Blick says. The New York City man admitted not only to being promiscuous, but also to being a heavy user of crystal methamphetamine, an illicit drug that lowers inhibitions and increases risky sexual behavior.

Mark Wainberg, PhD, professor of medicine at McGill University in Montreal, says multiple sex partners and repeated use of crystal “meth” may pack a wallop to the immune system, facilitating infection with multidrug-resistant HIV.

Another indication that a fast-acting new strain of HIV was not behind the man’s rapid illness was a measurement of his CD4 cell count. Blick’s study shows that his CD4 cell count (an indication of disease progression) responded to treatment, refuting the concept of a new aggressive strain.

Also, genetic susceptibility may have played a role in the man’s condition, Blick says. Because this type of supervirulent virus was seen in only one case in February, some researchers had theorized that the man’s individual genetic susceptibility, not the virus itself, was responsible for its rapid progression.

Wainberg tells WebMD that the study should end talk of a new AIDS superbug. “It’s a well-done analysis that shows the strains are virtually identical,” he says.

Get the Facts About HIV and AIDS

By Charlene Laino, reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD

SOURCES: 3rd IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, July 24-27, 2005. Gary Blick, MD, medical and research director, Circle Medicine, Norwalk, Conn. Mark Wainberg, PhD, professor of medicine, McGill University, Montreal.

Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

All market data delayed 20 minutes.