Well again, Mitchel's comment illustrates the point I am making. I hate to say it, but Mitchel has so little knowledge and understanding of science and the scientific method that he is unable to make sound judgements about what Montagnier is doing and saying, but relies almost entirely on the fact that few researchers agree with it as validation. He applies the same criterion to Matthias Rath, Gary Null, and pretty much every quake, faker, and "alternative" product peddler that comes along. It's unfortunate that he has failed to learn much about science despite being on this list that includes dozens of scientists and scientifically-trained people, and despite the efforts of a number of us to educate him.

Can I be any more clear?


On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
At 11:17 AM 7/20/2011, Michael Balter wrote:
Mitchel has put his finger on the main problem here. For some on the left, "orthodoxy" has come to include the scientific method, the need for evidence, and rationalism itself. Anything outside the scientific method is somehow revolutionary,

Is that what I said?
Did I question the need for evidence?

I wish more scientists would open up their minds to allow them to do the needed research, as Luc Montagnier is doing. ... And Michael B. isn't.



Ring the bells that still can ring,  Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack, a crack in everything, That's how the light gets in. 
~ Leonard Cohen

Michael Balter
Contributing Correspondent, Science
Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
New York University

Email:  [log in to unmask]
Web:    michaelbalter.com
NYU:    journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/

“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
                                                  --John Kenneth Galbraith