The complication with (incorrectly) labeling Margulis "an AIDS denialist", msla, is that you then make her responsible for a whole collection of unsubstantiated tropes that are targeted by that label. That's unwarranted, because Margulis was doing something quite opposite to "AIDS denialism"; Margulis, an esteemed scientist, was proposing an alternative causative factor that may explain AIDS, which isn't HIV, or more precisely, which isn't HIV in isolation.
> Margulis, an esteemed scientist, was proposing an alternative causative factor that may explain AIDS, which isn't HIV, or more precisely, which isn't HIV in isolation.
She's not esteemed in the field of what causes AIDS. She's esteemed in a different sub-field. In terms of AIDS, the actual experts have come to the conclusion she's wrong, and one thing we should all have learned by now is that our ignorance is not equal to the knowledge of experts.
> This fascinating discussion will make your jaw drop
>She's not esteemed in the field of what causes AIDS. She's esteemed in a different sub-field. In terms of AIDS, the actual experts have come to the conclusion she's wrong, and one thing we should all have learned by now is that our ignorance is not equal to the knowledge of experts.
The history of science also told us by now that experts are stubborn, and sometimes they have to first die, for the next generation to accept another theory.
It has also taught us that important new discoveries more often than not come not from established experts in a field, but by people from another sub-field or another field all together...
It has also taught us that scientists should continue challenging prevailing hypotheses all the time, because that's part and parcel of doing science...
> The history of science also told us by now that experts are stubborn, and sometimes they have to first die, for the next generation to accept another theory.
It tells us too that cranks will be cranks regardless of the evidence against them, and that cranks are more common than true revolutionaries.
Exactly. An “expert” is a skilled practitioner of some domain of human endeavor; a scientist is a truth-seeker. Expertise is orthogonal to scientific truth.
This fascinating discussion will make your jaw drop https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/discover-inter...