Talk:Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis

This article was created because it was explained to me that the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis was not the same as the AIDS dissident movement.

Duplication of AIDS reappraisal
This article is almost exactly the same as AIDS reappraisal


 * I removed all the duplication and provided a link to the AIDS reappraisal website where most of the information came from. The group is a subsection of the dissident movement, and the scientific members are almost identical --Grcampbell 22:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Note
Note to people: the content of links is not required to be NPOV, only content in articles, esp. if said links have disclaimer that said content may be POV. This is elementary stuff, people. Come on. Revolver 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If the AIDS Wiki link is allowed to be deleted for "NPOV" reasons, then just about every external link to a POV webpage on a controversial subject (Israel/Palestine, abortion, etc., etc.) would be able to be deleted. Nonsense. Revolver 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"that are considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" Why is this handle placed on everything that has ID attached to it? Because it's not in the consensus of the scientific opinion it's consider pseudo? Wiki is turning into one big joke - thanks to authors like the one who did this article. This article (and many others like it) are very biased in how they present the information. Slanting it in a way that makes the perspective seem utterly illogical. This is disingenuous and sad. Hopefully more people don't equate scientific opinions that aren't of the consensus as being pseudoscientific.... it's this type of poor reasoning that will inhibit scientific advance. --jorgekluney —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.53.46.141 (talk • contribs).


 * You're arguing a factual statement. ID is considered "pseudoscience" by the mainstream scientific community; please see the Intelligent design article for references. This debate is being argued ad nauseum on the appropriate pages (i.e. not here), but suffice to say that the consensus of the mainstream scientific community is that ID theory does not adhere to the scientific method. That doesn't mean ID is "right" or "wrong", just means that it is not considered "science" by the community. While we're on the topic, one could just as easily argue that the overt politicization of science (by forcibly introducing thinly veiled creationism as "science" in schools and groundlessly disparaging the well-accepted theory of evolution) is even more likely to "inhibit scientific advance". MastCell 18:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"by forcibly introducing thinly veiled creationism as "science" in schools and groundlessly disparaging the well-accepted theory of evolution".... and let me guess you're one of the more open-minded types. Not only do you not understand the id/naturalistic evo debate you misrepresent it. ID is 'thinly veiled creationism'? How so? Why do the creation-scientists argue against it? You are making a huge leap in reasoning if you are claiming that id leads to acceptance of the biblical Christianity. "There might be design at a certain level when one looks at biochemical functions and protein-complexes.... AH HA! The Judeo-Christian tradition IS correct after all." Brilliant. Again, you're claiming that anything that is not accepted "by the mainstream scientific community" is a pseudoscience (fake-science). This view point hinders science more than it helps it. How about that crazy pseudoscience that was quantum physics. Since when does this "official" scientific community declare what constitutes as science and what constitutes as pseudoscience? I think that should be left to the rational individual.... and a general consensus of scientists that are already working within a particular paradigm. It's funny, it's people like you that label the religious minded dogmatic and fundamentalistic.... but can't even assess that from their own perspective; and too arrogant to consider the possibility that maybe your position is incorrect. --jorgekluney. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.53.110.142 (talk • contribs).


 * Ummm... I'm not aruging that "anything that is not accepted "by the mainstream scientific community" is a pseudoscience". I'm stating that ID specifically is considered a pseudoscience by the MSC, and you're twisting my words (for instance, I don't recall broadly labeling "religious-minded" people as "dogmatic and fundamentalistic"). As I tried to point out, today's pseudoscience may be tomorrow's mainstream science - contrary to your assumption about my "arrogance", I agree the MSC might be wrong. That doesn't change the fact that right now, ID is regarded as pseudoscience by the MSC. I'm sorry that upsets you, and you're welcome to your own opinion. But this really isn't the place for this discussion. I would encourage you to be a little more civil; you're making assumptions, casting aspersions, imputing opinions to me that I haven't expressed, and trolling. MastCell 21:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I apologize. --jorgekluney.


 * No worries. MastCell 17:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio
Just noticed that much of the text of this article appears to have been taken verbatim from here. I've rewritten it to address this. MastCell Talk 21:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)