7 ms·

It's interesting to see that with Donald Trump out of office, the "lab escape" hypothesis is not roundly dismissed as a right-wing conspiracy theory anymore.

tyingq 6y ago
Accidental lab escape, or premeditated lab escape? Edit: Because the former doesn't sound like much of a conspiracy, aside from a cover-up afterwards.
- incrudible 6y ago
  I'm gonna invoke Hanlon's razor on that one.
- whiddershins 6y ago
  What’s odd is how infrequent it is for people to point out this distinction can never be known for sure. From there, the only safe bet is to act as if it were intentional. This is a controversial concept, but it is the rational choice. Never assume that someone who harms you is doing it accidentally. Even though it is more often than not the case, you still have to protect yourself with the possibility of malice in mind.
  - incrudible 6y ago
    Taken to the extreme, there's a pathology for that line of reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion
  - jmull 6y ago
    How is that rational? For one, if we assume it was released from a lab and that was intentional, the what was the intent? If it was to do what happened — kill millions and devastate the global economy — then the right reaction is a very severe cold war or possibly outright war. We literally could not allow it to happen again. But if it was released from a lab unintentionally, the right reaction is to spare no expense, regulation and treaty to secure such labs from this ever happening again. This would go for all labs like this, not just Chinese ones. These are entirely different reactions with entirely different costs and long-term ramifications for peace and stability for our world. Not to mention, the intentional release scenario doesn’t really make sense. E.g., China couldn’t damage our economy without damaging their own. And if you’re going to choose where to start the pandemic, why start it in your own country near a bio-research lab? If it was started intentionally, it makes more sense that China was framed. (Still doesn’t make a lot of sense though because what’s the rational motivation?)
  - atoav 6y ago
    I am going to transfer this to the individual: Working with the default hypothesis of "everybody is out there to destroy me" is not only a sign of paranoia, but in most cases also wrong (because in reality not everything is about you and accidents happen). So starting with the default hypothesis of malice has the serious downside that you will constantly feel threatened even if looking back there was no rational reason to feel threatened. This is not only incredibly exhausting, it also will lead to a "crying wolf"-type of problem, if the perceived threat rarely turns out to be one. And when something really dangerous is going to happen, you might not be able to react in a rational way (because all your previous reactions were irrational ones). What I think is important to rationally tackle that question is also to factor in confidence. I will always assume innocence (just because it makes me a happier person), but that doesn't mean my confidence in the other person being innocent is always big. If there are signs that other person is acting in malice, my confidence that they are innocent will shrink. Once that confidence crosses a certain threshold I will assume malice. This can also happen within a split second, so I don't see how this would not be the rational way to do this. If you go get bread at the bakery, you wouldn't assume the baker wants to poison you per default right? So you would assume their innocence unless there are clear indicators they are a baker that poisons their customers. The other way around, if a man jumps out of a bush in a dark alley and comes at you with a knife, you wouldn't assume they are innocent, because there are really strong indicators they are not. So what is irrational is to have incredible high confidence in either innocence or malice when in fact you are in a situation with lack of evidence to either direction. And this is the case in this situation.
- mrkramer 6y ago
  Most likely accidental if it was premeditated all out global bio-weapon war would happen. Just like assassination of Austro-Hungarian heir Archduke Franz Ferdinand brought domino effect and caused First World war the same would happen now.
  - cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
    >Most likely accidental if it was premeditated all out global bio-weapon war would happen. No, because at the same time they'd simultaneously make it look accidental; with a dictatorial, authoritarian country like China they could keep the evidence that it was premedicated from coming to light _and_ they could count on their politically fractured victims reacting in such a way as to further their goals. I notice that the matter of HCQ getting effectively shut down in the US due to the fraudulent Surgisphere paper and it _didn't raise any alarms at HN where someone asked WHY someone went through the trouble of planting a fake paper IN THE LANCET_. It's been brought up here but noone notices the implications. When did Hacker News become so damn intellectually incurious about these sorts of things?
  - cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
    Oh, one more thing. If you were in charge and your choices were "Start WW3 with tens of millions of US Casualties" or "ignore the fact that the enemy just killed 400,000 people" what the heck would you do?
    - mrkramer 6y ago
      What did Bush do when September 11 attacks happened? United States responded by invading Afghanistan in order to fight Talibans and they brought Patriot Act in order to greatly tighten US national security; the act included three main provisions: expanded abilities of law enforcement to surveil, including by tapping domestic and international phones; eased interagency communication to allow federal agencies to more effectively use all available resources in counterterrorism efforts; and increased penalties for terrorism crimes and an expanded list of activities which would qualify someone to be charged with terrorism.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
Touche 6y ago
It's almost as if the motivation for a claim matters.
- incrudible 6y ago
  So, if a claim is made, but the person who claims it has bad intentions, it can be dismissed? I believe there's a logical fallacy for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
  - Touche 6y ago
    We don't know if it's true, there's still no evidence even today. Motivation affects how we react to a theory with no evidence, when coming from Tom Cotton vs. a former CDC director. Btw, Tom Cotton's claim was that it was a government biochemical weapon's lab, that's not Redfield's theory.
    - incrudible 6y ago
      > We don't know if it's true, there's still no evidence even today. I have edited my comment to reflect that. > Motivation affects how we react to a theory with no evidence, when coming from Tom Cotton vs. a former CDC director. There's another fallacy for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
      - Touche 6y ago
        I took logic in college too. I didn't say that motivation affects whether something is true or not, just how much skepticism we apply to it. It's perfectly normal and good that we believe things experts say (when we ourselves do not have expertise) over a guy shouting on a street corner.
        incrudible 6y ago
        > It's perfectly normal and good... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
mattacular 6y ago
We'd like to go to war with China now that the right people are positioned to profit from it. US doing a land war still requires public support so now it's ok to drum up.
- throwaway316943 6y ago
  Not sure they actually want a war with a real power, see how much they tucked their tails when Russia put it’s foot down in Syria. They just want to find someone with enough money to play brinksmanship with them so they can continue to line their pockets.
atoav 6y ago
Donald Trump would have used any present ambiguity to spin it into a conspiracy myth, like he has demonstrated e.g. in the last US election [1]. Unsurprisingly this practise doesn't really create a climate in which curiosity and open speculation will thrive. Understandably, there are few researchers who would like their scientific speculation to become part the often colourful narratives Donald Trump and his followers tell each others. Edit: edited to reduce snarkiness and polemic phrases [1] For an example of Trump trying to find "material" that he can use for the stories he tells his following, see this transcript of Trumps call to the Georgia election official at the bottom of the page: https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-georgia-elections-a7b4aa4d8ce3bf52301ddbe620c6bff6 https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-tr...
bsima 6y ago
It's almost as if the news media is made up, perhaps even "fake."
beowulfey 6y ago
Nobody ever dismissed it. It has been a viable theory since the beginning. What was dangerous was pointing the finger at China and saying “this is all their fault!” without any evidence. There STILL is not evidence, but that doesn’t mean it should not be investigated as a source. Dismissing the theory outright has never and will never be an option. I don’t like that this is what the team decided to do, and I suspect there is a lot of tension in this investigation.
- incrudible 6y ago
  > Nobody ever dismissed it. You must've missed out on previous HN discussions. I remember these guys in particular being paraded around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQplOe8-LE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQplOe8-LE I did find their tone quite dismissive, and the verdict in the title leaves little room for interpretation. > What was dangerous was pointing the finger at China and saying “this is all their fault!” without any evidence. True, but that's irrelevant to the plausibility of the hypothesis. > There STILL is not evidence, but that doesn’t mean it should not be investigated as a source. Arguably, it's still dangerous to do exactly that.
  - beowulfey 6y ago
    I think a lot of the confusion, based on the responses to my comment, is separating the idea that the virus was CREATED in a lab from it being accidentally released from the lab. The former implies intent and carries a lot of secondary implications about bioweapons and political maneuverings. It is a hefty claim. The latter is simpler—it is reasonable to think a lab that maintains and studies viruses similar to Covid-19 accidentally allowed one to be released. It does not imply an intent to misuse the virus. I have not watched the video, I’m sorry. I’ll try and get to it later.
    - incrudible 6y ago
      > The former implies intent... It doesn't imply intent to use as a bioweapon, much less release it in their own population. The hypothesis that this was a gain-of-function experiment that went awry due to lax security still does put a lot of pressure on Chinese authorities, on top of the poor handling at the beginning of the outbreak.
simonh 6y ago
It's a credible theory I think, but it doesn't help that various conspiracy nuts have been fabricating fake evidence for it, exaggerating or misrepresenting facts and clouding it with a fog of crazy. I have no idea if the lab escape hypothesis is true, there's a reasonable chance that's what happened, but it's also true that the crackpot brigade is out on this one in force and that really isn't helping.
dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN threads into partisan flamewar. It makes discussions more predictable and nastier, and therefore dumber. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

tyingq 6y ago

Accidental lab escape, or premeditated lab escape? Edit: Because the former doesn't sound like much of a conspiracy, aside from a cover-up afterwards.

incrudible 6y ago
I'm gonna invoke Hanlon's razor on that one.
whiddershins 6y ago
What’s odd is how infrequent it is for people to point out this distinction can never be known for sure. From there, the only safe bet is to act as if it were intentional. This is a controversial concept, but it is the rational choice. Never assume that someone who harms you is doing it accidentally. Even though it is more often than not the case, you still have to protect yourself with the possibility of malice in mind.
- incrudible 6y ago
  Taken to the extreme, there's a pathology for that line of reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion
- jmull 6y ago
  How is that rational? For one, if we assume it was released from a lab and that was intentional, the what was the intent? If it was to do what happened — kill millions and devastate the global economy — then the right reaction is a very severe cold war or possibly outright war. We literally could not allow it to happen again. But if it was released from a lab unintentionally, the right reaction is to spare no expense, regulation and treaty to secure such labs from this ever happening again. This would go for all labs like this, not just Chinese ones. These are entirely different reactions with entirely different costs and long-term ramifications for peace and stability for our world. Not to mention, the intentional release scenario doesn’t really make sense. E.g., China couldn’t damage our economy without damaging their own. And if you’re going to choose where to start the pandemic, why start it in your own country near a bio-research lab? If it was started intentionally, it makes more sense that China was framed. (Still doesn’t make a lot of sense though because what’s the rational motivation?)
- atoav 6y ago
  I am going to transfer this to the individual: Working with the default hypothesis of "everybody is out there to destroy me" is not only a sign of paranoia, but in most cases also wrong (because in reality not everything is about you and accidents happen). So starting with the default hypothesis of malice has the serious downside that you will constantly feel threatened even if looking back there was no rational reason to feel threatened. This is not only incredibly exhausting, it also will lead to a "crying wolf"-type of problem, if the perceived threat rarely turns out to be one. And when something really dangerous is going to happen, you might not be able to react in a rational way (because all your previous reactions were irrational ones). What I think is important to rationally tackle that question is also to factor in confidence. I will always assume innocence (just because it makes me a happier person), but that doesn't mean my confidence in the other person being innocent is always big. If there are signs that other person is acting in malice, my confidence that they are innocent will shrink. Once that confidence crosses a certain threshold I will assume malice. This can also happen within a split second, so I don't see how this would not be the rational way to do this. If you go get bread at the bakery, you wouldn't assume the baker wants to poison you per default right? So you would assume their innocence unless there are clear indicators they are a baker that poisons their customers. The other way around, if a man jumps out of a bush in a dark alley and comes at you with a knife, you wouldn't assume they are innocent, because there are really strong indicators they are not. So what is irrational is to have incredible high confidence in either innocence or malice when in fact you are in a situation with lack of evidence to either direction. And this is the case in this situation.
mrkramer 6y ago
Most likely accidental if it was premeditated all out global bio-weapon war would happen. Just like assassination of Austro-Hungarian heir Archduke Franz Ferdinand brought domino effect and caused First World war the same would happen now.
- cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
  >Most likely accidental if it was premeditated all out global bio-weapon war would happen. No, because at the same time they'd simultaneously make it look accidental; with a dictatorial, authoritarian country like China they could keep the evidence that it was premedicated from coming to light _and_ they could count on their politically fractured victims reacting in such a way as to further their goals. I notice that the matter of HCQ getting effectively shut down in the US due to the fraudulent Surgisphere paper and it _didn't raise any alarms at HN where someone asked WHY someone went through the trouble of planting a fake paper IN THE LANCET_. It's been brought up here but noone notices the implications. When did Hacker News become so damn intellectually incurious about these sorts of things?
- cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
  Oh, one more thing. If you were in charge and your choices were "Start WW3 with tens of millions of US Casualties" or "ignore the fact that the enemy just killed 400,000 people" what the heck would you do?
  - mrkramer 6y ago
    What did Bush do when September 11 attacks happened? United States responded by invading Afghanistan in order to fight Talibans and they brought Patriot Act in order to greatly tighten US national security; the act included three main provisions: expanded abilities of law enforcement to surveil, including by tapping domestic and international phones; eased interagency communication to allow federal agencies to more effectively use all available resources in counterterrorism efforts; and increased penalties for terrorism crimes and an expanded list of activities which would qualify someone to be charged with terrorism.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

Touche 6y ago

It's almost as if the motivation for a claim matters.

incrudible 6y ago
So, if a claim is made, but the person who claims it has bad intentions, it can be dismissed? I believe there's a logical fallacy for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
- Touche 6y ago
  We don't know if it's true, there's still no evidence even today. Motivation affects how we react to a theory with no evidence, when coming from Tom Cotton vs. a former CDC director. Btw, Tom Cotton's claim was that it was a government biochemical weapon's lab, that's not Redfield's theory.
  - incrudible 6y ago
    > We don't know if it's true, there's still no evidence even today. I have edited my comment to reflect that. > Motivation affects how we react to a theory with no evidence, when coming from Tom Cotton vs. a former CDC director. There's another fallacy for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
    - Touche 6y ago
      I took logic in college too. I didn't say that motivation affects whether something is true or not, just how much skepticism we apply to it. It's perfectly normal and good that we believe things experts say (when we ourselves do not have expertise) over a guy shouting on a street corner.
      - incrudible 6y ago
        > It's perfectly normal and good... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

mattacular 6y ago

We'd like to go to war with China now that the right people are positioned to profit from it. US doing a land war still requires public support so now it's ok to drum up.

throwaway316943 6y ago
Not sure they actually want a war with a real power, see how much they tucked their tails when Russia put it’s foot down in Syria. They just want to find someone with enough money to play brinksmanship with them so they can continue to line their pockets.

atoav 6y ago

Donald Trump would have used any present ambiguity to spin it into a conspiracy myth, like he has demonstrated e.g. in the last US election [1]. Unsurprisingly this practise doesn't really create a climate in which curiosity and open speculation will thrive. Understandably, there are few researchers who would like their scientific speculation to become part the often colourful narratives Donald Trump and his followers tell each others. Edit: edited to reduce snarkiness and polemic phrases [1] For an example of Trump trying to find "material" that he can use for the stories he tells his following, see this transcript of Trumps call to the Georgia election official at the bottom of the page: https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-georgia-elections-a7b4aa4d8ce3bf52301ddbe620c6bff6 https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-tr...

bsima 6y ago

It's almost as if the news media is made up, perhaps even "fake."

beowulfey 6y ago

Nobody ever dismissed it. It has been a viable theory since the beginning. What was dangerous was pointing the finger at China and saying “this is all their fault!” without any evidence. There STILL is not evidence, but that doesn’t mean it should not be investigated as a source. Dismissing the theory outright has never and will never be an option. I don’t like that this is what the team decided to do, and I suspect there is a lot of tension in this investigation.

incrudible 6y ago
> Nobody ever dismissed it. You must've missed out on previous HN discussions. I remember these guys in particular being paraded around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQplOe8-LE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQplOe8-LE I did find their tone quite dismissive, and the verdict in the title leaves little room for interpretation. > What was dangerous was pointing the finger at China and saying “this is all their fault!” without any evidence. True, but that's irrelevant to the plausibility of the hypothesis. > There STILL is not evidence, but that doesn’t mean it should not be investigated as a source. Arguably, it's still dangerous to do exactly that.
- beowulfey 6y ago
  I think a lot of the confusion, based on the responses to my comment, is separating the idea that the virus was CREATED in a lab from it being accidentally released from the lab. The former implies intent and carries a lot of secondary implications about bioweapons and political maneuverings. It is a hefty claim. The latter is simpler—it is reasonable to think a lab that maintains and studies viruses similar to Covid-19 accidentally allowed one to be released. It does not imply an intent to misuse the virus. I have not watched the video, I’m sorry. I’ll try and get to it later.
  - incrudible 6y ago
    > The former implies intent... It doesn't imply intent to use as a bioweapon, much less release it in their own population. The hypothesis that this was a gain-of-function experiment that went awry due to lax security still does put a lot of pressure on Chinese authorities, on top of the poor handling at the beginning of the outbreak.

simonh 6y ago

It's a credible theory I think, but it doesn't help that various conspiracy nuts have been fabricating fake evidence for it, exaggerating or misrepresenting facts and clouding it with a fog of crazy. I have no idea if the lab escape hypothesis is true, there's a reasonable chance that's what happened, but it's also true that the crackpot brigade is out on this one in force and that really isn't helping.

dang 6y ago

Please don't take HN threads into partisan flamewar. It makes discussions more predictable and nastier, and therefore dumber. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html