4 ms·

I think you're being a bit too dramatic. For instance, read this https://twitter.com/SenTomCotton/status/1229202134048133126 https://twitter.com/SenTomCotton/st

I think you're being a bit too dramatic. For instance, read this https://twitter.com/SenTomCotton/status/1229202134048133126 https://twitter.com/SenTomCotton/status/1229202134048133126 where a senator raises several possibilities (ascribing the most probability of being true to the most reasonable one) yet several articles were written about what he's saying as if he's one of those people spreading "fake news" and "misinformation" that you dislike. Many people are making simple statements that are reasonable and possible but being called conspiracy theorists just for bringing the possibility up at all. You don't get to the truth of a matter by rejecting anything that has a small possibility of being true and labeling it fake news and misinformation. If the claim is extremely unreasonable then it shouldn't be a problem, most people can tell it's unreasonable. If it's not that unreasonable then maybe people should be allowed to speak about it, given that it's not clear how or why it isn't unreasonable.

nneonneo 7y ago
I don’t know where to start with your comment. > If the claim is extremely unreasonable ... most people can tell it’s unreasonable. Surely you must have far more faith in humanity than I do, or you would not make this statement. One only needs to look at the prevalence of vaccine skeptics, climate skeptics, creationists, ... to know that unreasonable claims can garner significant support despite considerable scientific evidence to the contrary. > rejecting anything that has a small possibility of being true Actually, this is called not placing undue weight on fringe ideas. There’s arguably a small possibility of practically anything being true. That doesn’t mean we need to sink time and energy into them. Should our current, most probable line of reasoning display flaws that can’t be remedied, then the scientific method dictates that we explore alternatives. Until then, the most probable explanation reigns. > given that it’s not clear how or why it isn’t unreasonable Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are unlikely to understand the subtler parts of a scientific concept (or really anything they aren’t experts in, in general), and consequently can fail to grasp why something is clearly unreasonable to someone more well-trained. A conspiracy theorist is someone who brings up possibilities that are extremely unlikely to be true. That would fit your senator to a tee. He’s not backing any of this up with actual evidence, he’s just bringing up scary possibilities. We don’t need that kind of fearful reaction in a public health crisis.
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  > A conspiracy theorist is someone who brings up possibilities that are extremely unlikely to be true. That would fit your senator to a tee. He’s not backing any of this up with actual evidence, he’s just bringing up scary possibilities. We don’t need that kind of fearful reaction in a public health crisis. What do you mean by “we don’t need...”? Why do we not need it? The truth matters, and if it did have origins in a lab (accidental or not, engineered or not), then bringing those responsible to justice matters. Thousands will have died by the time this is over. Furthermore, such speculation doesn’t meaningfully change the management of the public health crisis. I feel like the fear of misinformation is more overblown than speculation about the origins of the virus.
- cameldrv 7y ago
  I can't speak to this article, because I don't have the technical knowledge to evaluate it. I think that if you don't accept that it's a reasonable possibility that this escaped from one of the labs in Wuhan, you're being unscientific. The evidence for it having come from the lab is: 1. The Wuhan Institute of Virology published papers in the past two years about their experimentation with chimeric coronaviruses. Viruses similar to this one were without question present in that lab. 2. The lab is about 25 miles from the seafood market. 3. The true source of the virus couldn't have been the seafood market. We know this because four of the original cases have no apparent connection to the seafood market. The Chinese government has not identified a source of the virus given this information. 4. SARS has leaked from other Chinese research labs in the past. 5. H1N1 probably leaked from a Chinese lab in 1976 and caused a pandemic. 6. China covered up the virus in its initial stages as it tried to contain it, which would be expected if the virus originated from the lab.
  - mantap 7y ago
    You know, people said the same things about Porton Down when the Novichok nerve agent was released in Salisbury UK. It was mightily suspicious that this nerve agent was released just down the road from the UK government bio&chemical research station. But the Russians have practically admitted to it now. Wuhan is a huge city, larger than London. It's unsurprising that it has a lab that researches coronavirusee. It's especially unsurprising that the Chinese would be researching coronaviruses as they were previously affected by SARS-1. Everybody should keep an open mind to all possibilities when the Chinese government is present. It's not wrong to consider the possibility that this might have been an accidental release. I just don't see the evidence for it.

nneonneo 7y ago

I don’t know where to start with your comment. > If the claim is extremely unreasonable ... most people can tell it’s unreasonable. Surely you must have far more faith in humanity than I do, or you would not make this statement. One only needs to look at the prevalence of vaccine skeptics, climate skeptics, creationists, ... to know that unreasonable claims can garner significant support despite considerable scientific evidence to the contrary. > rejecting anything that has a small possibility of being true Actually, this is called not placing undue weight on fringe ideas. There’s arguably a small possibility of practically anything being true. That doesn’t mean we need to sink time and energy into them. Should our current, most probable line of reasoning display flaws that can’t be remedied, then the scientific method dictates that we explore alternatives. Until then, the most probable explanation reigns. > given that it’s not clear how or why it isn’t unreasonable Unfortunately, the vast majority of people are unlikely to understand the subtler parts of a scientific concept (or really anything they aren’t experts in, in general), and consequently can fail to grasp why something is clearly unreasonable to someone more well-trained. A conspiracy theorist is someone who brings up possibilities that are extremely unlikely to be true. That would fit your senator to a tee. He’s not backing any of this up with actual evidence, he’s just bringing up scary possibilities. We don’t need that kind of fearful reaction in a public health crisis.

throwawaysea 7y ago
> A conspiracy theorist is someone who brings up possibilities that are extremely unlikely to be true. That would fit your senator to a tee. He’s not backing any of this up with actual evidence, he’s just bringing up scary possibilities. We don’t need that kind of fearful reaction in a public health crisis. What do you mean by “we don’t need...”? Why do we not need it? The truth matters, and if it did have origins in a lab (accidental or not, engineered or not), then bringing those responsible to justice matters. Thousands will have died by the time this is over. Furthermore, such speculation doesn’t meaningfully change the management of the public health crisis. I feel like the fear of misinformation is more overblown than speculation about the origins of the virus.
cameldrv 7y ago
I can't speak to this article, because I don't have the technical knowledge to evaluate it. I think that if you don't accept that it's a reasonable possibility that this escaped from one of the labs in Wuhan, you're being unscientific. The evidence for it having come from the lab is: 1. The Wuhan Institute of Virology published papers in the past two years about their experimentation with chimeric coronaviruses. Viruses similar to this one were without question present in that lab. 2. The lab is about 25 miles from the seafood market. 3. The true source of the virus couldn't have been the seafood market. We know this because four of the original cases have no apparent connection to the seafood market. The Chinese government has not identified a source of the virus given this information. 4. SARS has leaked from other Chinese research labs in the past. 5. H1N1 probably leaked from a Chinese lab in 1976 and caused a pandemic. 6. China covered up the virus in its initial stages as it tried to contain it, which would be expected if the virus originated from the lab.
- mantap 7y ago
  You know, people said the same things about Porton Down when the Novichok nerve agent was released in Salisbury UK. It was mightily suspicious that this nerve agent was released just down the road from the UK government bio&chemical research station. But the Russians have practically admitted to it now. Wuhan is a huge city, larger than London. It's unsurprising that it has a lab that researches coronavirusee. It's especially unsurprising that the Chinese would be researching coronaviruses as they were previously affected by SARS-1. Everybody should keep an open mind to all possibilities when the Chinese government is present. It's not wrong to consider the possibility that this might have been an accidental release. I just don't see the evidence for it.