4 ms·
I would highly recommend parsing the statements by Chinese media and WHO very carefully. They're using explicitly non-scientific squishy language to describe t
by Consultant32452 7y ago
I would highly recommend parsing the statements by Chinese media and WHO very carefully. They're using explicitly non-scientific squishy language to describe the whole thing. One example:
>All available evidence suggests the virus has an animal origin and is not manipulated or constructed in a lab or somewhere else,” WHO spokeswoman Fadela Chaib told a Geneva news briefing. “It is probable, likely, that the virus is of animal origin.
What the heck does that mean, exactly? It sounds like MAYBE it suggests the virus' genome was not explicitly manipulated with CRISPR. Okay. Was the lab growing virus in human cadaver tissue? Was the lab putting selective pressure on the virus in bats? Was the lab even studying the virus which had been discovered totally as-is in the wild?
Make no mistake. There has been no blanket denial of the lab's involvement with the virus. Only carefully worded PR responses and calling you racist for asking questions.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoYou're still not providing evidence for. There is evidence against: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-not-human-made-lab-genetic-analysis-nature https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-19-not... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317175442.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200317175442.h... You do understand that the scientific method is couched entirely in current best understanding, right? We assume the theory of gravity is how gravity works up and can assume it's probably true until a better theory comes up. You'll notice they didn't mention the animal - can we then safely assume it's a moose flu? That's even better supported as they did confirm in the affirmative it was an animal. And the other lies you posted were said with 100% certainty - how is the use of probable more evidence of a lie?
- Consultant32452 7y agoI'm explicitly not making claims about the origin of the virus. The only "conspiracy" is that you're racist for demanding answers. Neither of your articles provides a blanket denial that the lab was involved in research that included the virus. It only makes some very narrow denials in non-scientific language.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoWell in that case that seems entirely philosophical, and entirely out of place with the other two claims, which can actually have results. But you do seem to be arguing for the theory as well.
- Consultant32452 7y agoI ask you about A. You respond with B, a tiny subset of A. I ask you for the rest of A. Rather than saying something even as innocuous as "I don't know" you call me a racist. In the most technical sense you might not be lying about B. But you're definitely being dishonest with the presumptive accusation of racism. And you're definitely using deceptive language to avoid answering the question. And you've definitely destroyed your credibility on a scale equal to "Masks don't work."
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoWhen outlined like that, it's totally fair to doubt, assuming that's the only or primary defense. Do you have some links to mainstream media outlets directly correlating questioning origin as being racist?
- snovv_crash 7y agoOn the contrary, this is exactly how scientific communication works. Nothing is in absolutes. If you want absolute language look to religion.