Should we permit interviews on non-core subjects, esp AIDS/HIV?

Perhaps the community wants this site uber focused on "psi" but I would cast a vote for expanding to include topics under the intersection of science and spirituality.

If "spirituality" is really involved, then fair enough but, as far as I can see, whether AIDS is caused by HIV seems to be a purely scientific question. Unless it's going to be suggested that psychical influence or demonic possession or something of that kind is involved. But I don't think that is the case.

Just to repeat, personally I have no objection whatsoever to "heretical" scientific theories in general being discussed on this site (though there is probably a case for making a clear separation from psi in the same way as for political conspiracy theories). But I think HIV/AIDS denialism is a special case, because it has had the effect of people being denied, or refusing, effective medical treatment - particularly in South Africa. I wouldn't want to be associated with a website that propagated such views. Some things are more important than having interesting discussions about psi.

Regarding Henry Bauer in particular, the fact that he has expressed homophobic views in the past (though he has apparently retracted them since) is an aggravating factor.

The question of the Henry Bauer interview is interesting. I see its relevance. I am having a private discussion at the moment about who is well-placed to weigh the evidence for or against psi. And a lot of the insistence that there is strong evidence for psi depends on who you regard as well-placed (including oneself).

The same process seems to be in place for those who doubt climate change, evolution, HIV/AIDS, etc., where mainstream scientists are not regarded as well-placed.

On the other hand, HIV/AIDS denialism seems to be about as dead as flat-eartherism - yes it's still out there, but nobody takes it seriously beyond a fringe few (I just asked an AIDS physician/researcher about their perception - "it hasn't been an issue for at least 10 years"). And in addition to the serious harm Bauer has contributed to, he has offered some pretty execrable opinions in the past (e.g. antihomosexual) that Psience may not want to associate with.

Full disclosure - I want him to be interviewed here, because I have some pointed questions to ask him (if allowed). But I see the validity of the concerns.

Linda

I think you can open any of those threads under OTHER.

You can. I think it would be easier to find a topic if that topic is posted to a specific forum. A one size fits all forum permits topics to be buried after a short time.

The question of the Henry Bauer interview is interesting. I see its relevance. I am having a private discussion at the moment about who is well-placed to weigh the evidence for or against psi. And a lot of the insistence that there is strong evidence for psi depends on who you regard as well-placed (including oneself).

The same process seems to be in place for those who doubt climate change, evolution, HIV/AIDS, etc., where mainstream scientists are not regarded as well-placed.

On the other hand, HIV/AIDS denialism seems to be about as dead as flat-eartherism - yes it's still out there, but nobody takes it seriously beyond a fringe few (I just asked an AIDS physician/researcher about their perception - "it hasn't been an issue for at least 10 years"). And in addition to the serious harm Bauer has contributed to, he has offered some pretty execrable opinions in the past (e.g. antihomosexual) that Psience may not want to associate with.

Full disclosure - I want him to be interviewed here, because I have some pointed questions to ask him (if allowed). But I see the validity of the concerns.

Linda

I have not researched the HIV/AIDS denialism topic, so that part of Bauer's narrative I can not speak to at all.

What resonated with me is his point about being careful to not put trust in scientists but rather in science.  I do believe quite strongly that individual bias and institutional influence are strong forces in any profession.  I've seen it directly in my industry (not science related at all).  Economic forces have proven to be exceptionally influential on people and groups of people from all corners.

That combined with the elevation of scientists to near priestly levels seems at least potentially concerning.

I have not researched the HIV/AIDS denialism topic, so that part of Bauer's narrative I can not speak to at all.

What resonated with me is his point about being careful to not put trust in scientists but rather in science.  I do believe quite strongly that individual bias and institutional influence are strong forces in any profession.  I've seen it directly in my industry (not science related at all).  Economic forces have proven to be exceptionally influential on people and groups of people from all corners.

That combined with the elevation of scientists to near priestly levels seems at least potentially concerning.

What's interesting is that most scientists probably agree with that. The elevation of scientists to near priestly levels seems to be mostly a lay-person activity. 

For example, the conclusions drawn by the authors as to what the results show tends to be of little interest to scientists, but lay-people often refer to them (or a journalist's wrongheaded presentation of them) as the main result of the study. 

Linda

What's interesting is that most scientists probably agree with that. The elevation of scientists to near priestly levels seems to be mostly a lay-person activity. 

For example, the conclusions drawn by the authors as to what the results show tends to be of little interest to scientists, but lay-people often refer to them (or a journalist's wrongheaded presentation of them) as the main result of the study. 

Linda

Fudging results to gain funding; feeling institutional pressure to stay away from certain areas at the threat of career consequences; control of funding from for-profit entities.  Those things are of little interest to scientists?

I'm most (certainly) not all feel that their research is largely pure and their biases, while real, are not debilitative to their pursuit of science.  However, scientists are no more immune to influence and bias impact than any layman (at least I would argue that to be the case).

I don't know, but it seems that these things should be, and more aptly would be, important to scientists.  At least the thoughtful ones.

Fudging results to gain funding; feeling institutional pressure to stay away from certain areas at the threat of career consequences; control of funding from for-profit entities.  Those things are of little interest to scientists?

I'm most (certainly) not all feel that their research is largely pure and their biases, while real, are not debilitative to their pursuit of science.  However, scientists are no more immune to influence and bias impact than any layman (at least I would argue that to be the case).

I don't know, but it seems that these things should be, and more aptly would be, important to scientists.  At least the thoughtful ones.

Of course they are of interest to scientists. Scientists have been interested in this for far longer than it has taken for the public to be aware. That's why I said scientists aren't interested in the conclusions authors draw about their results - they are all too familiar with the pressures those authors are under to draw the 'right' conclusion. 

Linda

Of course they are of interest to scientists. Scientists have been interested in this for far longer than it has taken for the public to be aware. That's why I said scientists aren't interested in the conclusions authors draw about their results - they are all too familiar with the pressures those authors are under to draw the 'right' conclusion. 

Linda

Okay, so if they are concerned with the issue and are disinterested in others' conclusions about the issue: What's their conclusion?  How would they counter laymen questioning the veracity of supposed scientific claims by certain scientists due to this "issue"?

I mean if it actually is "an issue" I would think scientists would be all over it as it potentially undermines the credibility of the entire community.  Right?