HIV & AIDS: The Logic of Failure
Could the Logic of Failure explain the controversy at Dean’s World?. Dean has become a convert to the HIV does NOT cause AIDS side. Since I have read Duesberg’s paper and am halfway through the book, I haven’t come out and said that, though I’m leaning that way.
The reasons I’m most likely going to come out against the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis are various. One thing that I’m fixated on today is the following thought experiment:
Imagine that we did not know today that smoking caused cancer (or more accurately, increased the likelihood of the occurence of diseases known collectively as “cancer”). Now, imagine that you are a virologist who decides to tackle the disease of emphysema.
You would be constrained in your search for a cause by your area of expertise (virology) and would have limited understanding of other areas. You would also be subjected to the human tendency to see patterns where none existed. As a result you would see those wasting from emphysema, throat cancer, COPD, heart disease and other conditions as similar to other diseases proven to be caused by virii.
Now imagine that you studied the tissues of those suffering from the above named diseases. You would find hundreds – if not thousands – of various virii in your samples, and most likely one would be common to most (but not all) samples.
You would then be tempted to conclude that this common virus caused emphysema and the related cancers.
And stepping out of our thought experiment, you would be wrong.
I am a computer programmer by training who has moved into the area of analysis. One of the things I do is analyze how businesses do what they do and study their successes and their mistakes. In my work I have relied alot on Dietrich Dorner’s book, The Logic of Failure. In his book Dorner explains why smart people often are led to erroneous conclusions.
The people who support the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis are not stupid. And the fact remains, that those that don’t believe HIV causes AIDS are not stupid either. One of these two groups is right, and as I continue studying the controversy from my perspective as an analyst, the evidence is pointing me towards the latter group as being the one with the correct hypothesis.
Dorner’s book is a must read for anyone who thinks, since it will help you avoid the pitfalls that lead to erroneous conclusion and in some cases, disasters.
