Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang
cannot be answered without alsoquestionthe extent and implications of theconsideringdenialism that took hold in South AfricaAIDSthe 1990s and 2000s, where the denialists’inare implicated in the deaths of hundredsviewsthousands of people, as described in Box7.3ofMax Essex, an AIDS expert, quoted inbelow.(2008), stated that history will judgeLenzereither as “a nut who is just a teaseDuesbergthe scientific community” or an “enabler totomurder” for the deaths of thousands ofmassvictims.AIDSwas not isolated to South Africa orDenialismpersists, rightly or wrongly, throughoutAIDS—itworld. It masquerades as scientic scepticismtheis fuelled by the issues, tensions andandof the time and place. How do we protectagendaspluralism and the right to dissent, whilescienticminimizing the fallout of bad science? Whatalsoshould denialists such as Duesberg beplatformOften the scientic facts in question aregiven?one component—as we see in Chapter 1:justmay not be enough to change beliefs. TOKfactsus with tools to balance these tensions,equipspluralism and dissent on the one hand,betweenscientic autonomy and responsibility on theandto make judgments about the veracity ofother,claims and their implications.scienticquestions in the “Practising skills” boxThefollows this case study can be applied tothatdissidents and leakers everywhere.denialists,an example, AIDS denialism is recentAsto resonate with us emotionally andenoughbut also just old enough to showintellectually,communities of scientists wrestle withhowquestions. The University of California,theseopened an investigation intoBerkeley,misconduct related to Duesberg’sacademicbut abandoned it in 2010, citing a lackclaimsevidence and that his work is protected byofto hold a tenured professorshipcontinuesYet, Bruce Charlton, editor of the journalthere.Hypotheses, which published his 2009Medical(when other journals had refused), wasarticlelargely for refusing to adopt a peerreviewsacked,structure in response to the controversy.early as 1996, Science magazine, one of theAstop academic journals, published anworld’sinvestigation into the “Duesbergeight-pagephenomenon”.terms: Special NewsSearchThe DuesbergReportin 1996 Richard Horton, editor of theAlsomedical journal The Lancet, and onerespectedthe most established Duesberg critics of theofwas compelled to come to his defence.time,deserves to be heard, and the ideologicalDuesbergthat he has undergone will remainassassinationembarrassing testament to the reactionaryanof modern science. Irrespective of one’stendenciesabout the validity of some of Duesberg’sviewsone is forced to ask: At a time whenarguments,ideas and new paths of investigation arefreshdesperately being sought, how can the AIDSsospirit may have compelled Bruce CharltonThatpublish Duesberg’s paper in 2009 and fortoAmerican to state the following inScientificPariahs Have Good Ideas” (2007).“When[may be] shocked to see Duesberg as anReadersin this month’s issue. He is not here becauseauthorhave misgivings about the HIV-AIDS link. Ratherwehas also developed a novel theory aboutDuesbergorigins of cancer … That concept is still onthefringe of cancer research, but laboratories aretheit seriously. Thus, as wrong as Duesberginvestigatingis about HIV, there is at least a chance that hesurely(Scientic American 2007)II. PerspectivesII. PerspectivesphenomenonMaking connectionsDenialismcommunity aord not to fund Duesberg’s research?(Horton 1996)is signicantly right about cancer.the principle of academic freedom. Duesberg179
II. Perspectivesof Duesberg’s papers was publishedOnethe journal Medical Hypotheses in 2009,ina major scandal. Medical Hypothesessparkingfounded in 1975 by David Horrobinwascounter the conservative adherence totoideas that Horrobin saw in peer-acceptedjournals. His criteria for publishingreviewedwas simple: they had to be interestingarticlesimportant, and plausible but notand“true” because, as he saw it:necessarilyhistory of science has repeatedly“thethat when hypotheses areshownit is impossible to predictproposedwill turn out to be revolutionarywhichwhich ridiculous. The only safeandis to let all see the light andapproachlet all be discussed, experimentedtovindicated or destroyed. I hopeupon,journal will provide a new battlefieldtheto all on which ideas can beopenand put through the fire.”tested1975)(HorrobinVilayanur Ramachandran,Neuroscientistin 2011 as one of Time magazine’slistedmost influential people in the world,100on the editorial board of the journal,andsaid, “there are ideas that may seemsimilarlybut which are very importantimplausibleexplained his position to ScienceDuesbergin December 1994. “‘The one thingmagazinedoing here is almost destroying my ownI’mby questioning whether HIV is thereputationof AIDS.’ … He insists that if he read acausescientific article that suggested to himsinglewas wrong, he would alter his views. ‘I’mhefor that article,’ he says. ‘I would lovelookingpublished” (quoted in Enserink 2010).themHypotheses was thus seen by some asMedicalthe consequences of AIDS denialism inAsAfrica make clear, there are inherentSouthto this freedom, and drawing a lineriskslegitimate scientific dissent andbetweendenialism can be verypseudo-scientificIn 2009 a group of scientistsdifficult.that the journal be removed fromrequestedMEDLINE database because it lackedtheand had legitimized AIDS denialism.rigourNattrass, Director of the AIDS andNicoliResearch Unit at the University ofSocietyTown, stated that the journal “has longCapea source of concern in the scientificbeen… because the articles are notcommunityand “had a disturbingpeer-reviewed”record of publishing pseudo-science”track2009). When the journal’s current(NattrassBruce Charlton was asked to adopteditorpeer-review structure to mitigate theseahe refused, stating this went againstrisks,journal’s founding purpose and history.thewas dismissed soon after. A majorityHethe journal’s editorial board protestedofdecision to change the editorial policiesthefinally, in 2010, a new editor wasbutand a hybrid peer-review structureappointedDuesberg saga makes us ponder whenThein science is productive, versusdisagreementWe should be concernedcounterproductive.asking the right questions so that we canwiththese tensions, for example betweenbalanceand disagreement, betweenconsensusand autonomy, in order to best servepluralismpublic interest.the7Box 7.3: AIDS denialism—the role and responsibilities of scientific journalsa bastion of academic freedom and pluralism.if true. This is the only place you can getimplemented.to see it’” (Cohen 1994).180
- Page 135 and 136: we consider the contributions of TE
- Page 137 and 138: an authority and belief system that
- Page 139 and 140: III. Methods and toolsand mutual ai
- Page 141 and 142: IV. Ethicsthe only thing one can do
- Page 143 and 144: IV. Ethicsintellectual property has
- Page 145 and 146: 6andKnowledgereligionworld’s reli
- Page 147 and 148: I. Scopejudicial, economic, and pol
- Page 149 and 150: I. Scopein his view, involves this
- Page 151 and 152: I. Scopekinds of questions altogeth
- Page 153 and 154: II. Perspectivespractices of the cu
- Page 155 and 156: religious knowledge lose something,
- Page 157 and 158: what extent can we comprehend the w
- Page 159 and 160: II. Perspectivesone, it allows stra
- Page 161 and 162: the context of perspectives, it is
- Page 163 and 164: view has been criticized for being
- Page 165 and 166: David Thoreau was a naturalist, wri
- Page 167 and 168: III. Methods and toolsdisasters are
- Page 169 and 170: IV. Ethicswe have an ethical respon
- Page 171 and 172: IV. EthicsSinger described conseque
- Page 173 and 174: IV. Ethics1962, generals seized pow
- Page 175 and 176: recent human activity called scienc
- Page 177 and 178: II. Perspectivessection explores th
- Page 179 and 180: II. Perspectivessaid to be in crisi
- Page 181 and 182: II. PerspectivesNewton’s theory?
- Page 183 and 184: II. Perspectives19th century reveal
- Page 185: II. PerspectivesWhat are some scien
- Page 189 and 190: II. Perspectivesis a highly simplif
- Page 191 and 192: II. Perspectivesterms: Symphony ofS
- Page 193 and 194: II. Perspectivesorigin story of gen
- Page 195 and 196: II. Perspectivestechnical debates i
- Page 197 and 198: II. Perspectivesfar this section ha
- Page 199 and 200: II. Perspectivesthe kind of problem
- Page 201 and 202: III. Methods and toolsthe scientifi
- Page 203 and 204: III. Methods and toolsunrecognized
- Page 205 and 206: III. Methods and toolshas a number
- Page 207 and 208: III. Methods and toolsthe link to t
- Page 209 and 210: IV. Ethicswas the wartime head of t
- Page 211 and 212: IV. Ethicsan essential, imperfect a
- Page 213 and 214: 8Human scienceschapter is about the
- Page 215 and 216: I. Scopeof an idea or theory coming
- Page 217 and 218: I. Scopecentral cause of the profes
- Page 219 and 220: I. Scopeidea of describing society
- Page 221 and 222: who had been placed at the ‘lower
- Page 223 and 224: explore perspectives on the existen
- Page 225 and 226: II. Perspectivesallegations of scie
- Page 227 and 228: we look at the simplifications that
- Page 229 and 230: II. PerspectivesIII. Methods and to
- Page 231 and 232: III. Methods and toolslack of diver
- Page 233 and 234: III. Methods and toolssensitivity
- Page 235 and 236: III. Methods and toolsMargaret Mead
cannot be answered without also
question
the extent and implications of the
considering
denialism that took hold in South Africa
AIDS
the 1990s and 2000s, where the denialists’
in
are implicated in the deaths of hundreds
views
thousands of people, as described in Box7.3
of
Max Essex, an AIDS expert, quoted in
below.
(2008), stated that history will judge
Lenzer
either as “a nut who is just a tease
Duesberg
the scientific community” or an “enabler to
to
murder” for the deaths of thousands of
mass
victims.
AIDS
was not isolated to South Africa or
Denialism
persists, rightly or wrongly, throughout
AIDS—it
world. It masquerades as scientic scepticism
the
is fuelled by the issues, tensions and
and
of the time and place. How do we protect
agendas
pluralism and the right to dissent, while
scientic
minimizing the fallout of bad science? What
also
should denialists such as Duesberg be
platform
Often the scientic facts in question are
given?
one component—as we see in Chapter 1:
just
may not be enough to change beliefs. TOK
facts
us with tools to balance these tensions,
equips
pluralism and dissent on the one hand,
between
scientic autonomy and responsibility on the
and
to make judgments about the veracity of
other,
claims and their implications.
scientic
questions in the “Practising skills” box
The
follows this case study can be applied to
that
dissidents and leakers everywhere.
denialists,
an example, AIDS denialism is recent
As
to resonate with us emotionally and
enough
but also just old enough to show
intellectually,
communities of scientists wrestle with
how
questions. The University of California,
these
opened an investigation into
Berkeley,
misconduct related to Duesberg’s
academic
but abandoned it in 2010, citing a lack
claims
evidence and that his work is protected by
of
to hold a tenured professorship
continues
Yet, Bruce Charlton, editor of the journal
there.
Hypotheses, which published his 2009
Medical
(when other journals had refused), was
article
largely for refusing to adopt a peerreview
sacked,
structure in response to the controversy.
early as 1996, Science magazine, one of the
As
top academic journals, published an
world’s
investigation into the “Duesberg
eight-page
phenomenon”.
terms: Special News
Search
The Duesberg
Report
in 1996 Richard Horton, editor of the
Also
medical journal The Lancet, and one
respected
the most established Duesberg critics of the
of
was compelled to come to his defence.
time,
deserves to be heard, and the ideological
Duesberg
that he has undergone will remain
assassination
embarrassing testament to the reactionary
an
of modern science. Irrespective of one’s
tendencies
about the validity of some of Duesberg’s
views
one is forced to ask: At a time when
arguments,
ideas and new paths of investigation are
fresh
desperately being sought, how can the AIDS
so
spirit may have compelled Bruce Charlton
That
publish Duesberg’s paper in 2009 and for
to
American to state the following in
Scientific
Pariahs Have Good Ideas” (2007).
“When
[may be] shocked to see Duesberg as an
Readers
in this month’s issue. He is not here because
author
have misgivings about the HIV-AIDS link. Rather
we
has also developed a novel theory about
Duesberg
origins of cancer … That concept is still on
the
fringe of cancer research, but laboratories are
the
it seriously. Thus, as wrong as Duesberg
investigating
is about HIV, there is at least a chance that he
surely
(Scientic American 2007)
II. Perspectives
II. Perspectives
phenomenon
Making connections
Denialism
community aord not to fund Duesberg’s research?
(Horton 1996)
is signicantly right about cancer.
the principle of academic freedom. Duesberg
179