Luc Montagnier goes down

[EricBarbour]

Just another example of a WP biography being screwed into a hit-piece.

The following blog post made me check into Montagnier's BLP.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... l-disease/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier

And sure enough, there's a brief section about his co-discovery of the HIV virus, and long rants about his medical quackery.
Much of the latter inserted by the utterly bizarre BullRangifer (T-C-L), a regular accomplice of DGG, and quite
fond of killing reindeer, as well as chasing medical quackery.

As of December 2008, it was a perfectly good, short biography.
But over the last 3 years, BullRangifer, with the help of JzG and a few others, have turned a Nobel-winning scientist,
eccentric as he may be, into a lunatic. The sheer amount of text making Montagnier out as a medical quack now exceeds
the amount of text talking about his legitimate scientific work.

BullRangifer is quite a dedicated troll. If he were not pushing the anti-quack "official house position" of Wikipedia,
I suspect he would have been banned by now. He loves to argue and harass.

[Hersch]

This is bigger than Wikipedia. Montagnier is challenging certain moribund orthodoxies in the scientific world, and whenever a scientist has the courage to do that, it's war. More on that from my favorite unorthodox source.

[Cla68]

Just another example of a WP biography being screwed into a hit-piece.

The following blog post made me check into Montagnier's BLP.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ind ... l-disease/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier

And sure enough, there's a brief section about his co-discovery of the HIV virus, and long rants about his medical quackery.
Much of the latter inserted by the utterly bizarre BullRangifer (T-C-L), a regular accomplice of DGG, and quite
fond of killing reindeer, as well as chasing medical quackery.

As of December 2008, it was a perfectly good, short biography.
But over the last 3 years, BullRangifer, with the help of JzG and a few others, have turned a Nobel-winning scientist,
eccentric as he may be, into a lunatic. The sheer amount of text making Montagnier out as a medical quack now exceeds
the amount of text talking about his legitimate scientific work.

BullRangifer is quite a dedicated troll. If he were not pushing the anti-quack "official house position" of Wikipedia,
I suspect he would have been banned by now. He loves to argue and harass.

Those guys have a strong antipathy towards homeopathy, so it appears they are trying to structure that article so that it discredits the idea that Montagnier's research supports homeopathy. It's similar to what the anti-ID editors do, or have done, to the BLPs of scientists and academics who give the appearance of supporting ID or theistic science.

[TungstenCarbide]

This is bigger than Wikipedia. Montagnier is challenging certain moribund orthodoxies in the scientific world, and whenever a scientist has the courage to do that, it's war. More on that from my favorite unorthodox source.

OMG. You posted a Larouche link. According to the other site you're Satan himself!

[Zoloft]

This is bigger than Wikipedia. Montagnier is challenging certain moribund orthodoxies in the scientific world, and whenever a scientist has the courage to do that, it's war. More on that from my favorite unorthodox source.

OMG. You posted a Larouche link. According to the other site you're Satan himself!

That must make me God, or at least Morgan Freeman. Think I'll take tomorrow off.

[Hersch]

Those guys have a strong antipathy towards homeopathy, so it appears they are trying to structure that article so that it discredits the idea that Montagnier's research supports homeopathy. It's similar to what the anti-ID editors do, or have done, to the BLPs of scientists and academics who give the appearance of supporting ID or theistic science.

It's the straw man tactic, SOP for these types. They don't want to confront LM's ideas, so they insinuate that he supports some other discredited doctrine.

[Cla68]

Those guys have a strong antipathy towards homeopathy, so it appears they are trying to structure that article so that it discredits the idea that Montagnier's research supports homeopathy. It's similar to what the anti-ID editors do, or have done, to the BLPs of scientists and academics who give the appearance of supporting ID or theistic science.

It's the straw man tactic, SOP for these types. They don't want to confront LM's ideas, so they insinuate that he supports some other discredited doctrine.

Actually, reading the article, it looks like they are trying to do two different things (I couldn't think of the appropriate metaphor). They are emphasizing that LM himself has stated clearly that he is not supporting homeopathy, and they are also trying to discredit his research.

[Hersch]

Those guys have a strong antipathy towards homeopathy, so it appears they are trying to structure that article so that it discredits the idea that Montagnier's research supports homeopathy. It's similar to what the anti-ID editors do, or have done, to the BLPs of scientists and academics who give the appearance of supporting ID or theistic science.

It's the straw man tactic, SOP for these types. They don't want to confront LM's ideas, so they insinuate that he supports some other discredited doctrine.

Actually, reading the article, it looks like they are trying to do two different things (I couldn't think of the appropriate metaphor). They are emphasizing that LM himself has stated clearly that he is not supporting homeopathy, and they are also trying to discredit his research.

With the fig leaf of NPOV, they have to concede that LM doesn't support it, but that doesn't prevent them from insinuating:

Although fellow Nobel prize winners – who view homeopathy as quackery – were left openly shaking their heads, Montagnier's comments were rapidly embraced by homeopaths eager for greater credibility....Cristal Sumner, of the British Homeopathic Association, said Montagnier's work gave homeopathy 'a true scientific ethos'."[24]

[iii]

With the fig leaf of NPOV, they have to concede that LM doesn't support it, but that doesn't prevent them from insinuating:

Although fellow Nobel prize winners – who view homeopathy as quackery – were left openly shaking their heads, Montagnier's comments were rapidly embraced by homeopaths eager for greater credibility....Cristal Sumner, of the British Homeopathic Association, said Montagnier's work gave homeopathy 'a true scientific ethos'."[24]

Wikipedia's problem is one of being hamstrung by crowdsourced incompetence which mires it in bizarre doublespeak and needless dancing around the issue resulting in absurd word counts when editors get bees in their bonnets.

The person in question is part of a larger drama where a small community of maverick French biomedical researchers have talked out of both sides of their mouth about their beliefs in magic. It's not hard to connect the dots between Montagnier's pseudo-intellectual positions and those of Jacques Benveniste and other Boiron-funded groups. Pseudoscience at this level is pretty easy to spot, but Wikipedia is allergic to such points. What probably should happen is a gutting of the biography with the briefest of mentions that the man has become enamored with "maverick" positions and has been shunned by the community. Simple, to the point, and essentially uncontroversial summary of the matter, so it won't end up in Wikipedia.

[lilburne]

It is probably not too much of an exaggeration to say that 90% of the French have a fetish for homoeopathy.

[SB_Johnny]

It is probably not too much of an exaggeration to say that 90% of the French have a fetish for homoeopathy.

While I'm sure this won't add much to the discussion, I'm reminded of my college days when we coined the term "homeosexual" for people who were under the (mistaken, IMO) impression that scented candles and incense created a sexy mood. Or maybe it was that the pot created the sexy mood, and the candles obscured the stench of bong.

[iii]

This is bigger than Wikipedia. Montagnier is challenging certain moribund orthodoxies in the scientific world, and whenever a scientist has the courage to do that, it's war. More on that from my favorite unorthodox source.

In something of a coincidence, I asked some LaRouche activists I came across the other day about their support for various pseduosciences based upon my education by Hersch. They didn't seem to be as up on the subject as I had hoped. Though they were all pretty rabid global warming denialists, they knew less about why their group had adopted that ideology than I did. Maybe it was just a bad batch, but it did make me curious as to how committed the LaRouche disciples are required to be to basement team orthodoxy.

But this probably something to consider in the Off-Topic-ness.

[piku]

Nobel disease, is that the diagnosis for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brian_Josephson?

[The Wife]

Linus Pauling, another victim of Nobel disease according to In the Gulag.

[EricBarbour]

Nobel disease, is that the diagnosis for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brian_Josephson?

That's a cold-fusion mess. Ask Abd about it. JzG was the primary abuser, but the Connolley gang were involved.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=33616

[iii]

....Ask Abd about it....

That's usually quite an exhausting undertaking.

[Cla68]

There are some topics about which strong feelings would be expected from WP volunteers, such as Palestine/Israel or the US presidential election. But homeopathy, cold fusion, and Intelligent Design? I never would have guessed that those topics would attract such dedicated groups of activists bound and determined to use Wikipedia to discredit them and the people around them.

[The Wife]

There are some topics about which strong feelings would be expected from WP volunteers, such as Palestine/Israel or the US presidential election. But homeopathy, cold fusion, and Intelligent Design? I never would have guessed that those topics would attract such dedicated groups of activists bound and determined to use Wikipedia to discredit them and the people around them.

Ambiguity bothers people so they arm themselves. Making science conform to what is popular in society comforts people.

I was discussing cold fusion with In the Gulag last night. I do not feel I have been able to provide a view outside of what is presented on WP because I am unfamiliar with the sources. I'm even unclear as to what the two or more sides are on the issue. I can only suppose one side says, "It's fusion," and the other says, "It's not fusion."

In the Gulag mentioned that science has become more politicized since World War II. It was already political when it started but that politicalization has changed in many ways.

[Hersch]

In my notoriously unorthodox opinion, it's not a question of "liking" homeopathy (which isn't even an issue here -- it's a straw man tactic which is totally extraneous to Montagnier's argument,) or liking Intelligent Design (although I suppose some people do for religious reasons. I'm a Deist myself, so I'm sort of axiomatically for it, but certainly not because of any Revealed Truths in any holy books.) It's more a question of certain flawed, reductionist theories which are built on shaky ground, so the defenders of those theories will tend to overreact to any possible heretical challenge. As for Cold Fusion, the question is not whether it is fusion or not fusion. It is a phenomenon, evidently a repeatable one, that cannot be explained using the present corpus of theory, so it is therefore urgent that it be proven to be some sort of fakery.

Long story short, anything which exposes a loose end in the accepted lattice of theories cannot be tolerated and must be suppressed. Which is ironic, because it is only by exploring those loose ends that science actually progresses. If I were editing Wikipedia, I imagine I would take some iconoclastic pleasure in tormenting those who are desperately trying to airbrush out those loose ends.

[iii]

There are some topics about which strong feelings would be expected from WP volunteers, such as Palestine/Israel or the US presidential election. But homeopathy, cold fusion, and Intelligent Design? I never would have guessed that those topics would attract such dedicated groups of activists bound and determined to use Wikipedia to discredit them and the people around them.

In an online community where "date delinking" is an enormous controversy, I think it is more surprising when there aren't "dedicated groups of activists" in a topic.

[Cla68]

Well, to be fair to some of those editors, I think that they would argue that they're only responding to attempts by proponents of those philosophies/ideas to sway the articles to their side. Still, it seems they end up going too far.

[The Wife]

In my notoriously unorthodox opinion, it's not a question of "liking" homeopathy (which isn't even an issue here -- it's a straw man tactic which is totally extraneous to Montagnier's argument,) or liking Intelligent Design (although I suppose some people do for religious reasons. I'm a Deist myself, so I'm sort of axiomatically for it, but certainly not because of any Revealed Truths in any holy books.) It's more a question of certain flawed, reductionist theories which are built on shaky ground, so the defenders of those theories will tend to overreact to any possible heretical challenge. As for Cold Fusion, the question is not whether it is fusion or not fusion. It is a phenomenon, evidently a repeatable one, that cannot be explained using the present corpus of theory, so it is therefore urgent that it be proven to be some sort of fakery.

Long story short, anything which exposes a loose end in the accepted lattice of theories cannot be tolerated and must be suppressed. Which is ironic, because it is only by exploring those loose ends that science actually progresses. If I were editing Wikipedia, I imagine I would take some iconoclastic pleasure in tormenting those who are desperately trying to airbrush out those loose ends.

Thanks. I hope In the Gulag can read more about it. I'm hoping he has time to read Cla's blog post here, too.

[The Wife]

Well, to be fair to some of those editors, I think that they would argue that they're only responding to attempts by proponents of those philosophies/ideas to sway the articles to their side. Still, it seems they end up going too far.

There's a new WP motto: They end up going too far.

[iii]

In my notoriously unorthodox opinion, it's not a question of "liking" homeopathy (which isn't even an issue here -- it's a straw man tactic which is totally extraneous to Montagnier's argument,)

Montangnier's argument is the same one as the rest of the French water memory crowd. That it is associated with "homeopathy" is just the way in which the story has played out.

or liking Intelligent Design (although I suppose some people do for religious reasons. I'm a Deist myself, so I'm sort of axiomatically for it, but certainly not because of any Revealed Truths in any holy books.)

If you are a Deist, then your axiomatic support of a primum movens puts you at direct odds with all but the most obscure of Intelligent Design fans. There are a select number of middlebrow intellectuals who took that benign (a)gnosticism and ended up sucking on the teat of that cash cow at the Center for Science and Culture, but only by ignoring the naked evangelism surrounding them are they able to function (Berlinski is an interesting example). Read a bit, and I'd wager you'd probably dislike the majority of the position papers written by Intelligent Design proponents.

It's more a question of certain flawed, reductionist theories which are built on shaky ground, so the defenders of those theories will tend to overreact to any possible heretical challenge.

A cute story, but not really borne out in evidence. I mean, homeopathy and intelligent design are based on magical thinking and nothing more. There's nothing wrong with believing in magic, but it is inimical to scientific investigation at the very foundations of the enterprise. Alternatively, one can claim that the scientific community is conspiratorially suppressing observations that show certain phenomena exist, but that sort of argument is pretty absurd when you look at the sum total of all the claimed phenomena that people adopt the conspiratorial view towards. Where do you draw the line? One person likes global warming denialism and homeopathy but hates creationism and astrology. One person likes megavitamin therapy medicine but hates perpetual motion machines. It's perfectly fine to posit that some ideas that don't enjoy expert support are correct and the experts are wrong, but there's no way to tell which ones those are and, worse, there are far more examples of maverick ideas which turned out to be wrong than there are that turned out to be right in spite of claims that it's only mavericks who "move science forward" (see below). This kind of acceptance of ludicrous ideas but rejection of others is an unresolvable argument.

As for Cold Fusion, the question is not whether it is fusion or not fusion. It is a phenomenon, evidently a repeatable one, that cannot be explained using the present corpus of theory, so it is therefore urgent that it be proven to be some sort of fakery.

It is interesting that you are so credulous of cold fusion claims. I didn't realize that it was still part of the LaRouche cosmology. The latest comments on the subject I could find from LaRouche were in a 1998 publication quoting a statement by LaRouche from 1992.

Long story short, anything which exposes a loose end in the accepted lattice of theories cannot be tolerated and must be suppressed. Which is ironic, because it is only by exploring those loose ends that science actually progresses. If I were editing Wikipedia, I imagine I would take some iconoclastic pleasure in tormenting those who are desperately trying to airbrush out those loose ends.

That's got to be one of the weirdest justifications for internet trolling I've ever read. Incidentally, the "loose ends" that science progresses by are hotly discussed and debated within the community. I don't know what you think scientists are doing otherwise. Those loose ends do not include water memory, intelligent design, and cold fusion, etc.

[HRIP7]

Well, to be fair to some of those editors, I think that they would argue that they're only responding to attempts by proponents of those philosophies/ideas to sway the articles to their side. Still, it seems they end up going too far.

There's a new WP motto: They end up going too far.

I like it.

[SB_Johnny]

There are some topics about which strong feelings would be expected from WP volunteers, such as Palestine/Israel or the US presidential election. But homeopathy, cold fusion, and Intelligent Design? I never would have guessed that those topics would attract such dedicated groups of activists bound and determined to use Wikipedia to discredit them and the people around them.

You clearly have been underexposed to quacks and quack haters. Lucky you, actually.

I'm actually fairly anti-quack myself, though oddly enough I do have a couple friends who are chiropractors. I've never had an "adjustment", and politely decline when they offer me one. I've also learned to never under any circumstances discuss antibiotics with them, because I've sat through the "people lived for thousands of years without antibiotics" spiel enough times to know that it's very difficult to restrain myself from telling them what idiots they are.

Worse still, I have an organic farm, which makes the organic wackos think I'm one of them. Organic farms are very good for the people who work on them, but I'm not at all paranoid about a little bit of pesticide residue on the produce that I'm going to wash anyway. Some things do taste better organic, but most don't.

[Cla68]

There are some topics about which strong feelings would be expected from WP volunteers, such as Palestine/Israel or the US presidential election. But homeopathy, cold fusion, and Intelligent Design? I never would have guessed that those topics would attract such dedicated groups of activists bound and determined to use Wikipedia to discredit them and the people around them.

You clearly have been underexposed to quacks and quack haters. Lucky you, actually.

I have had my experiences. I used to live in Hollywood, CA (the seedy side, not the glamorous side).

[Hersch]

Some things do taste better organic, but most don't.

A big +1 on that.

[Hersch]

Here's another bio of a scientific heretic, Lynn Margulis -- it's not as nasty as the Montagnier bio, mostly because Margulis had largely gained the upper hand over her critics before Wikipedia came along. Had there been a Wikipedia before her ideas gained acceptance, they would have crucified her. As you can see at the end of the article, they are still searching for tidbits on nonconformity over which to castigate her.

[iii]

they are still searching for tidbits on nonconformity over which to castigate her.

Margulis was famous for being welcoming of many frontier ideas right and wrong, but a hazard of the profession is, as one gets older, to go out on limbs that are ready to break.
I find it stretching credulity to propose that there's a conspiracy to defame her. Here is a famous "anit" who had pretty laudatory things to say of her at her death.

[EricBarbour]

I find it stretching credulity to propose that there's a conspiracy to defame her.

I don't. You haven't seen all the crap the Connolley gang generated, to attack their foes. Wikipedia is like that--instead of an organized "conspiracy", it's a magnet for
like-minded cranks and angry folks of whatever persuasion. If enough of them form critical mass on WP, you have these kind of half-assembled "we hate so-and-so,
let's use Wikipedia to piss on them" movements. Remarkably incompetent, usually, but good at attacking and pushing away any opponents.

That's one thing Wikipedia is set up for and facilitates; the Conan the Barbarian approach. "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women" etc.

[Cla68]

Here's another bio of a scientific heretic, Lynn Margulis -- it's not as nasty as the Montagnier bio, mostly because Margulis had largely gained the upper hand over her critics before Wikipedia came along. Had there been a Wikipedia before her ideas gained acceptance, they would have crucified her. As you can see at the end of the article, they are still searching for tidbits on nonconformity over which to castigate her.

There are a few WP regulars who seem to be against mentioning any academic research or ideas that haven't been accepted by a majority of peer-reviewed, academic or science journals. They won't even accept a passing mention of the contrary idea, no matter how respected the scientist/academic is in their career field. Like you all mentioned above, they seem to be antagonistic to ambiguity.

[iii]

I find it stretching credulity to propose that there's a conspiracy to defame her.

I don't. You haven't seen all the crap the Connolley gang generated, to attack their foes. Wikipedia is like that--instead of an organized "conspiracy", it's a magnet for
like-minded cranks and angry folks of whatever persuasion. If enough of them form critical mass on WP, you have these kind of half-assembled "we hate so-and-so,
let's use Wikipedia to piss on them" movements. Remarkably incompetent, usually, but good at attacking and pushing away any opponents.

That's one thing Wikipedia is set up for and facilitates; the Conan the Barbarian approach. "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women" etc.

I guess I'm just having a hard time seeing the extensive defamation. I assume that this is the section where the critics here say it is happening. It doesn't look that over-emphasized or defamatory to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

[iii]

Here's another bio of a scientific heretic, Lynn Margulis -- it's not as nasty as the Montagnier bio, mostly because Margulis had largely gained the upper hand over her critics before Wikipedia came along. Had there been a Wikipedia before her ideas gained acceptance, they would have crucified her. As you can see at the end of the article, they are still searching for tidbits on nonconformity over which to castigate her.

There are a few WP regulars who seem to be against mentioning any academic research or ideas that haven't been accepted by a majority of peer-reviewed, academic or science journals. They won't even accept a passing mention of the contrary idea, no matter how respected the scientist/academic is in their career field. Like you all mentioned above, they seem to be antagonistic to ambiguity.

Refusing to mention "any academic research or ideas that haven't been accepted by a majority of peer-reviewed, academic or science journals" is, I think, preferable to the situation where the biography subject's article is browbeaten with a detailed nitpick of their maverick sensibilities. In the cases being cited here, the issue seems not to be one where the ideas are being removed from the articles, but rather one where they're being over=emphasized.

Britannica has far less coverage of minority and idiosyncratic opinions than Wikipedia, and I think that this is a more consistent and healthier way to approach such matters.