> Tim Ikeda writes:
>
> <<His motivation for entering the debate? I have no idea.
> His grasp of the important, fine details of medical science and
> biochemistry (such as PCR and epidemiology)? Apparently weak.
> I don't think he appreciated how fast the AIDS field was moving or
> how unreliable a source Peter Duesberg can be.>>
>
> I'm not sure where Tim gets his characterizations here, but when Charles A.
> Thomas, Jr., the biochemist who is president of the Helicon Foundation; and
> Kary Mullis, who is the 1993 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, join with Phil
> to write a lengthy and detailed article which Reason not only published, but
> characterized as a "strong case," I think Phil's grasp of the details must
> have been just fine.
>
Of course, this is just an argument from authority with a twist of guilt
by association (i.e. he must know the details because he associated
himself with these wonderful authorities). A frankly doubt Phil had a
grasp of the details and probably relied heavily on the other authors,
which is one of the primary reasons for coauthors. I don't know who
Thomas is, and I don't care that he's the president of some foundation
I'm unfamiliar with. Mullis may have a Nobel Prize, but it doesn't mean
he really knows what he's talking about. If you're going to argue from
authority, show me that they really do know what they're talking with
respect to the issues. I frankly think you are guilty of invoking the
exact argument you've been calling a "priesthood" fallacy, where your
priesthood is anyone associated with Phil and vice versa.
Since the question you're trying to answer is whether Phil knows what he's
talking about, convince me that Phil knows what he's talking about.
Tom