Being an expatriated Dane writing a column for an online journal like YBYL that is called Views From The Mysterious Eastern Front is almost as convoluted as the thinking of AIDS apologists 23 years after their fearful hypothesis has shattered on every scientific rock known to man and a few that are new .... What is one supposed to make of this weird perspective: a view from the edge, an oblique view from elsewhere lost in nameless obscurity? But namelessness can be a privilege: the time has come to invoke the privilege of my plight and present an unlikely challenge to one of the most prominent rocks of scientific common sense in dissident waters; because this rock, in spite of its ancient Grecian might and mercilessness, is continually granting free passage to the HIV/AIDS flagship as it is tossed to and fro, rudderless and with tattered sails.
In the following I document the apparently incredible, Noam Chomsky's alignment with the official policy of censorship as outlined in the "Responsible Journalism" session at last year's AIDS media spectacle in Toronto. And I attempt to explain the inexplicable by hinting at a reason for Chomsky's inconsistency in this matter.
In an internet document called Rationality/Science, Chomsky claims that post-structuralists' attack on science are at best an attack on a distorted image of science which he calls "X" so as not to confuse the two. Prof. Chomsky writes:
". . . X postulates dogmatically that "a predictable end point can be known in advance as an expression of X-achieved truth," and insists upon "grounding values in [this] objective truth." It denies the "provisional and subjective foundations" of agreement in human life and action, and considers itself "the ultimate organizing principle and source of legitimacy in the modern society," a doctrine to which X assigns "axiomatic status." X is "arrogant" and "absolutist."
I quite agree that X should be consigned to the flames. But what that has to do with our topic escapes me, given that these attributions scarcely rise to the level of a caricature of rational inquiry (science, etc.), at least as I'm familiar with it."
I submit that by these words Prof. Chomsky has tied himself to the stake on the HIV/AIDS issue as evidenced in his net forum exchange with 'rethinker' Mike Chappelle. In this exchange, Prof. Chomsky states his position thus:
"On HIV-AIDS (global warming, the truth of quantum theory,... and other cases where there is an overwhelming consensus among specialists who have worked hard on the topic), we have the following options:
(1) Do the required research ourselves and find the answers.
(2) Assume the consensus to be accurate
(3) Assume that our guess to the contrary is right even though we haven't done the work
We can exclude (1): neither you, (Mike Chappelle) your friend, nor I have done the required work. That leaves (2) and (3)."
On this background Chomsky chooses (2). Chomsky in essence says that one has to become a virologist to evaluate the conclusions of virologists. Like John Moore, he seems to think HIV science is not accessible to laymen (including himself), therefore it makes no sense for him to even discuss the issue.
Mike Chappelle does an excellent job, to which I refer the reader, of showing that the options outlined constitute a false dilemma and that Chomsky's dismissal of option (1) is plain wrong. What remains, according to Prof.Chomsky, is a moral question no less:
"What then are you offering those people? One possibility is that your guess is wrong and the overwhelming consensus among people who have done the work is right. Then you are consigning tens of millions of suffering people to a hideous death. . . . It takes a good deal of self-confidence, to put it mildly, to adopt (this) course. At least this much is transparent: don't pretend to be adopting a moral stance. I'm trying to say this as politely as I can. An appropriate answer would be considerably harsher.."
Firstly we see that Prof. Chomsky presents another false dilemma right out of the AIDS INC. Propaganda Manual: "ARVs or death". More interesting, however, is that which is not said: Prof. Chomsky does not condemn it as a 'non-moral stance' to accept the scientific consensus - with or without doing one's own research. The difference is underscored by the consequences described by Chomsky if the scientific consensus should turn out to be wrong:
"Suppose your (Chappelle's) guess turns out to be right. Then funding agencies, governments, and others will save money -- and the drug companies will award you the grandest prizes they can conjure up, since they will not be dragged kicking and screaming, under intense public pressure in the third world and the West, to sell drugs well below the price they want."
There are apparently no moral consequences attendant upon following the leaders of the herd, even when they are wrong, whereas opposition so clearly endangers one's immortal soul.
But on what principle is such harsh self-censorship founded? Prof. Chomsky is an 'old school' scientist. He has little sympathy with post-modern gibberish as this classical distinction between nonsensical and genuine scientific statements shows:
"Quite regularly, 'my eyes glaze over' when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count. True, there are lots of other things I don't understand: the articles in the current issues of math and physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in these fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-and-that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know how to proceed."
Also Sprach David Hume . . . and who can argue with that? The property distinguishing 'genuine science', is that it is expressed in sentences carrying meaning capable of rational examination. That meaning, furthermore, can be conveyed to rational ears, even ones as old fashioned as Prof. Chomsky's, via the medium of everyday English (or any other common language). Such a translation of subject-matter belonging to highly specialized disciplines into the shared everyday language of Reason is precisely what Prof. Duesberg has done to the dismay of some of his colleagues within the Virus cult.
Science is judged by its own rules, general rules of reason and those rules as applied to specific disciplines, such as Koch's postulates in biology. One certainly needs specialized knowledge and research to "answer the question for oneself" whether HIV causes AIDS, or to determine the practicability of Koch's postulates with regard to retro-viruses. But any rational person, presented with the proper arguments and a coherent, universally accepted set of rules to judge by, can make a determination whether something is demonstrated in accordance with those rules.
In spite of this, Prof Chomsky contends that the very well informed Chappelle has not "done the work", thereby, as the latter notes, "effectively banning further discussion on the AIDS controversy as well as any dissent from mainstream scientific opinions in general in this forum".
The steps are as follows:
1. Chomsky issues a prohibition against trespassing on the exclusive domain of the scientific experts.
2. The domain of the experts is identified with the consensus.
3.The dangers of transgression are depicted in moral terms.
It is hard to believe Prof Chomsky, the dissident, is saying this. The answer may be found in Chomsky's view of science as being inherently truthful in its communications across space and time:
"It is not that scientists are inherently more honest, open, or questioning. It is simply that nature and logic impose a harsh discipline: in many domains, one can spin fanciful tales with impunity or keep to the most boring clerical work (sometimes called "scholarship"); in the sciences, your tales will be refuted and you will be left behind by students who want to understand something about the world."
This expresses the traditional belief in an inevitable progression intrinsic to science, the exclusive domain of specialized experts, towards a truth about the world; a truth which, as we have seen, confers moral authority onto the seekers of it in spite of themselves.
Regardless of the integrity of the scientist, the truth an sich of science will shine through, reveal, unfold. Regardless of momentary aberrations, the herd of consensus scientists is always in a sense on the path of the righteous, shepherded by the intrinsically self-correcting endeavor in which they supposedly engage.
The idea of the authority of the scientific consensus is the idea that each scientist will test and retest the theory in question, taking into account the newest results and the newest empirical data, using the infallible scientific method. It is the idea that the method, an sich (as it were), is eternal, immutable, ultimately interpretation transcendent. It is, in short, the idea of the Way being the Truth which confers moral authority onto the scientific consensus.
But the idea that truth reveals itself in and through the son of Man is a religious idea, and hasn't religion long been consigned to the flames - by Science.
Claus Jensen is a Dane living in Thailand where
he is able to eke out a meager but sustainable existence as a martial arts instructor primarily because
he is much taller than the average Thai, and can overpower most
ordinarily accomplished Thai boxing teachers provided they are half his size and
twice his age.
To have that image leading off an essay on Chomsky's use of post-structuralist philosophy as part of an argument against the type of research ( i.e., scientific method) practiced by scientists like Duesberg is a trip!
Chomsky knows as much about the social dynamics of consensus formation as anybody and has spent a career warning us of its corporatist tricks and traps. To present a moral argument on the economic utility of "AIDS" drugs distribution by davos countries to third world countries without including any discussion of the marginal utility of alternatives such as food, water, education and preventive healthcare for those same third world countries is not the Chomsky I know.
And to suggest that those scientists who rigorously pursue an alternative path to knowledge despite the disapproval and consensus of a majority of their peers are somehow failing in their moral obligations is too weird even for me. I can only believe 2-3 impossible things before breakfast.
I've been reading Chomsky's work on language since my 20s. I agree with him that the rules of language are generative and species specific. Sometimes I'm almost smug in my certainty where that particular belief is concerned. But right this minute, after reading his arguments against dissent from "mass media-AIDS", I feel more like the dog in the Dirk Vekemans' poem.
I've always held Chomsky's work in the highest regard. I still do. I think he's awesome. This just totally weirds me out. It's like he's taking the side of those who agree that anything that doesn't forcibly maintain control of global natural resources and human capital by "rational" western society is off the table. Everything else is on the table.
It's like the mugger who politely asks you after he robs you if you would rather be shot in the left knee or the right knee (for your own good, so you can't run looking for a cop - he's doing it to save your life). God forbid that you suggest he doesn't shoot you at all. If you do that, he's liable to shoot you in the head for being so stupid as to argue with a mugger with a gun.
But I *know* that Chomsky's not that way. He's the opposite. He's one of the good guys. That's why i'm still shaking in disbelief.
Posted by: Michael D. Harold | March 02, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Chomsky exemplifies the belief among academics and the public in the "fairy tale" that *only* scientists have developed a correct method for arriving at the truth about reality. But when Chomsky was so vocal against the war in Vietnam, wasn't he going against the "experts" who "should know better"? Isn't the decision whether troops should stay in Vietnam based upon arguments that follow from logic and empirical data? And who should "know better" to have made those decisions, than the military leaders themselves? They had more experience, more knowledge, and more access to hard data than Chomsky.
Yet, Chomsky felt no moral qualms about coming out against the war. What makes AIDS any different? According to Chomsky's argument, he had *ZERO* right to speak up about the war. *NONE*. The *ONLY* way he can say he was justified and remain consistent is to claim that the military leaders were not acting as "scientists" at the time. But this is just the "fairy tale" (as Feyerabend would put it) that only people who are labelled "scientists" by society (given degrees, titles, careers, etc.) are capable of working by a correct method of arriving at truths about reality.
Among mathematicians, there's a saying, "Everyone is a mathematician...they just don't know it." (yes, not everyone is taught how to write proofs, or group theory, but everyone counts, everyone has some kind of number sense, everyone has some kind of spacial sense etc.) If only "scientists" felt the same way. The kind of "method" that scientists use is not their sole province, dreamed up by a bunch of old men 300 years ago sitting around a table...it's just a refinement of the common sense and problem-solving ability anyone is capable of.
To say that one can question military leaders but not scientists not only ignores the political influences in modern science, more importantly, it ignores the "scientific" decision-making that underlies almost all public policy debates we care about.
Posted by: Darin C. Brown | March 02, 2007 at 11:58 AM
"And what of the incredible sequence of lies on the part of our government and its spokesmen concerning such matters as negotiations in Vietnam? The facts are known to all who care to know. The press, foreign and domestic, has presented documentation to refute each falsehood as it appears. But the power of the government's propaganda apparatus is such that the citizen who does not undertake a research project on the subject can hardly hope to confront government pronouncements with fact... Is the purity of American motives a matter that is beyond discussion, or that is irrelevant to discussion? Should decisions be left to 'experts' with Washington contacts—even if we assume that they command the necessary knowledge and principles to make the 'best' decision, will they invariably do so? And, a logically prior question, is 'expertise' applicable—that is, is there a body of theory and of relevant information, not in the public domain, that can be applied to the analysis of foreign policy or that demonstrates the correctness of present actions in some way that psychologists, mathematicians, chemists, and philosophers are incapable of comprehending?... American aggressiveness, however it may be masked in pious rhetoric, is a dominant force in world affairs and must be analyzed in terms of its causes and motives. There is no body of theory or significant body of relevant information, beyond the comprehension of the layman, which makes policy immune from criticism. To the extent that 'expert knowledge' is applied to world affairs, it is surely appropriate—for a person of any integrity, quite necessary—to question its quality and the goals it serves. These facts seem too obvious to require extended discussion." ("The Responsibility of Intellectuals", New York Review of Books, 23 February 1967)
Posted by: A Less Naive Prof. Chomsky | March 02, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Is Prof. Chomsky aware of the significant intersections between the sets containing HIV/AIDS "scientists", government operatives, corporate board rooms and media lackeys?
If not, a look at the Real Rogue's Gallery on the Bulletin Board will quick like a bunny, or a bad Speedy Gonzales joke, set him straight.
And is the professor aware that many of these same persons have been carefully preparing "bird flu" to replace HIV/AIDS when the gravy train finally comes to a grinding halt?
Lastly, if Dr. Chomsky's interest instead of his ire has been aroused by today's page, some unhurried time attending to a few (randomly chosen even) of the other articles on these pages will allow him to fill some of the holes in his knowledge of a subject he feels so free to pontificate about without having any.
Posted by: Harvey Bialy | March 02, 2007 at 02:03 PM
NOAM CHOMSKY AND HIS CONVENIENTLY DEFEATIST ARGUMENT
Chomsky lays out three choices when faced with a consensus scientific hypothesis:
Re-do the technical work yourself, to find out if the consensus is accurate.
Accept the consensus.
Assume one’s own GUESS to the contrary is correct.
Of course, his third choice is wrongly framed. One does not need to guess. One does not need to be a virologist to find holes in virologists’ logic. Logic is about valid and invalid inference, and inference is the connective tissue of argument, in case Dr. Chomsky has forgotten. On top of that, it can be easy to spot scientists breaking their own rules. Koch’s postulates come to mind. This method of determining disease causation is either satisfied or it isn’t. In the case of HIV, the postulates have not been fulfilled. A layperson can perceive this. The 200 or so chimps intentionally infected with HIV over the last decade or more have remained healthy.
So Chomsky’s third choice sets up a ridiculous straw man: a random subjective GUESS would, of course, be of no use---but guessing is distinct from pointing out inferential errors and pointing out the breaking of traditional rules.
Beyond all that, any list of choices which forces one to accept professional consensus as the pragmatic gold standard is grossly unscientific. The scientific method is not about sheer consensus numbers. It is about rigorous confirmation (or rejection) of a conclusion, carried out by many minds. Consensus numbers and confirmation are not necessarily the same animals. We can determine whether a consensus was arrived at in a rigorous or error-ridden fashion.
For example---the San Francisco Men’s Study, the most wide-ranging attempt to track HIV-positive status on to full-blown AIDS. This long-term study was, indeed, part of the consensus that purported to establish the dangers of HIV infection. However, there was no useful control group, because the tracking of HIV-negative men was desultory. Further, a significant number of HIV-positive men who never took AZT or stopped taking it remained healthy for at least 10 years. The Study researchers chose not to broadcast this fact widely, even though it was a crucial discovery.
Although I am not a trained virologist, I managed to find out these facts.
When confronted by people who claim to have key evidence of a massively wrong professional hypothesis, Chomsky tends to desert any semblance of rationality. He retreats into sheer garble.
A rational scientist would carefully examine evidence that could constitute a refutation of the accepted hypothesis. Instead, Chomsky typically pleads technical ignorance and goes on to accept the consensus.
Consensus is never solid ground for the automatic acceptance of any proposition. It never was, and it never will be. Chomsky is offering an epistemological argument for consensus---“what can we as laypersons know?”---“what can we, without technical knowledge or know-how, do?”
Epistemology does not recapitulate logic. It’s a sophomoric way to cover up logic, where logic is available. Chomsky is framing his own helpless personal brand of epistemology, for his own purposes.
HIV is not the first time he has followed this strategy
Posted by: Jon Rappoport | March 02, 2007 at 05:39 PM
Long years ago the linguist Wayne O'Neil interrupted one of my aimless strolls and hauled me off to a lecture by one Noam Chomsky. Fateful encounter. Thereafter, and forever more, I did occasionally pause the perambulations to consider the fine points of why O'Neil, Chomsky, Louis Kampf and other teachers had risked everything on a "call to resist illegitimate authority." It is passing strange, it is sadly pathetic, that today Chomsky would pander to that doddering sham, The Appeal To Authority. Wayne would have smiled at such jejune illusion. Louis would have snarled.
Posted by: Frank Lusardi | March 03, 2007 at 12:55 PM
All right, all right: The wise old man was, he himself, fooled... Pity, what a formidable ally he would be! But in this fight, though he may not be a comrade in the trench, he is not an enemy. And in how many other, important/essential causes he has thought/taught/fought, and continues to think/teach/fight?
Samba
Posted by: Samba Diallo | March 03, 2007 at 02:54 PM
I do not know Prof. Chomksy as a linguist, and am only slightly familiar with some of his books on how the US government and the media constantly lie and manipulate us.
So I cannot be as disappointed in his anti-intellectual position on HIV/AIDS as the others who have commented on the article by Mr. Jensen.
But like Mr. Diallo, I do not think he should be punished to no limit for missing the boat and being fooled by the almighty authorities that he has to face every day in Cambridge.
He would not be the first public figure to adopt such a contradictory position.
And I am not only thinking of my 'friends' Oprah and Obama.
Posted by: Lee Evans | March 03, 2007 at 04:00 PM