Re: [A-List] How "scientific" is science?

[Hayduke <hayduke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 12/17/2005 12:48 PM, bar@xxxxxxxxxxx at bar@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Koch's requirements are not met at all re hiv. Not at all. If you are
> referring to all those papers dealing with supossed particles of the virus
> then you are dead wrong in claiming that a virus has been idientified. Oh,
> yeah. What does it look like? Where is the electron photography of it?
> What is its DNA structure? How can a virus attack the very system which
> defeats such viruses? Why has the virus never exploded into the general
> poulation?

    Interesting questions!

    I am not referring to "all those papers" because I have not read "all
those papers" on both sides of the issue. This is not my area of study.

    No one claims that any area of scientific study is locked up and fully
answered. This one area that is subject to continuing study and to claim
that one side or the other has the final answer is absurd.

    Anyone can ask questions in the absence of data. It's the accumulation
and analysis of data that is critical, not the asking of questions that may
or may not be relevant to the problem.

    Michael
--
Hayduke Speaks!
http://www.calcentral.com/~mlewis
Hayduke Blogs!
http://www.calcentral.com/~mlewis/blogduke.html