6 ms·

I like this presentation of evidence. Rarely do you see such a short acknowledgement that there are multiple contradictory theories, each having some evidence,

I like this presentation of evidence. Rarely do you see such a short acknowledgement that there are multiple contradictory theories, each having some evidence, and making no attempt to pick which theory is correct. Sometimes its wrong to present "both sides" like that. Like pretending the evidence against the moon landings is equal to the evidence for the moon landings. But if you're going to be wrong, this is probably the best kind of wrong.

beowulfey 6y ago
well, often the benefit of listing out as much evidence as possible (basically, look at the facts on hand) is that it can help clarify WHICH theory makes the most sense
- eightysixfour 6y ago
  I think this is one of those areas where our day-to-day probability heuristics do not align with the actual probabilities. So, as an individual, trying to decide which theory makes the most sense is a Sisyphean task. For example, I have seen a lot of comments that the closest natural COVID reservoir is 500 miles away, that sounds like a lot! But the average tractor trailer can cover that in a day no problem, so our heuristic needs to include how many trucks are moving between those areas, how many have come in contact with wildlife or are transporting it, etc. Since it only takes one transmission the problem rapidly becomes too complex. Fortunately the answer has no bearing on decisions being made in the here and now, so we can afford to wait and let experts do their jobs and hope we take the right steps long term if it was something that could have been avoided.
  - ricksunny 6y ago
    > we can afford to wait and let experts do their jobs We can emphatically not expect the experts to do their job. Those cited as having the most expertise (virologists who undertake gain-of-function research, symbolically under the auspices of HHS’ toothless P3CO regulation framework) have the most to lose from a finding that the pandemic’s source was a lab leak. They lose all the grants and public financial support, not to mention endure unending public scorn that will haunt the their careers for the duration. For evidence that the relevant, oft-cited scientists act precisely this way, one need no more than to look at @BlockedVirology’s retweets: https://twitter.com/blockedvirology https://twitter.com/blockedvirology Scientists are human - I would highly recommend disabusing oneself of the notion that they might act contrary to overwhelming human incentives in as weighty a context as investigating the origins of the greatest pandemic in a century. The only alternative in the face of this embedded conflict of interest in our (society’s) ability to credibly investigate the pandemic’s origins is for technically-minded individuals (who don’t run multimillion dollar virology labs) to avail themselves of the findings gathered to date on the origins (there’s lots! Just need to take a look, the contributors to the above feed are a good place to start), and advocate to their representatives for a credible & even-handed origins investigation. Failing that, expect no origin beyond all reasonable doubt to be credibly identified in our lifetimes.
    - eightysixfour 6y ago
      Scientists are human, and they will make mistakes, the benefit is that there are many of them with different incentives. The "Blocked Virology" twitter account references a lot of previous lab escapes to say that lab escapes are possible, this is good evidence against your point - how do you think we know about the previous escapes? It wasn't a random group of technically-minded individuals, it was experts that tracked it down. The level of arrogance necessary to believe that any "technically minded" individual can find where the virus originated is mind blowing to me. Logic isn't the end-all-be-all, for many fields you must also have knowledge. We should not ignore the blindspots that deep knowledge can introduce but to just dismiss it is absurd.
      - katbyte 6y ago
        There has never been a lab leak leading to a global pandemic and mass deaths, I don’t think you can compare now to anything other then maybe the Spanish flu
        tripletao 6y ago
        The 1977 flu pandemic was very likely a lab escape. From the NEJM: > The reemergence was probably an accidental release from a laboratory source in the setting of waning population immunity to H1 and N1 antigens https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra0904322 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra0904322 About 700k people died worldwide. That's more than a typical flu season but not grossly so, and it's impossible to say with certainty what kind of flu season would have occurred naturally without the escape. https://nouvelles.umontreal.ca/en/article/2018/01/19/you-re-more-likely-to-die-from-the-h1n1-flu-if-you-were-born-in-1957/ https://nouvelles.umontreal.ca/en/article/2018/01/19/you-re-... SARS-CoV-2 is certainly worse. The 1977 flu pandemic is still a lot of deaths, though, and surprisingly little-known.
    - jeduehr 6y ago
      Actually a lot of virologists are also critical of GOF. Just look at public health people, epidemiologists. Folks like Andrea Sant, Michael Osterholm, David Topham, etc. These folks criticize GOF all the time, and are a big part of the group that helps write regulations to make Virology research safe. But you know what these same virologists also don't believe? That SARS-COV-2 was cooked up in a lab. That should tell you something. Science is adversarial, and virology is no exception. That's why when consensus exists about something, you should respect it. There is quite a large consensus about this one.
darepublic 6y ago
You can present evidence for and against moon landing being a hoax and if done properly the delusional theory among them (hoax) should be really clear. Presenting the evidence as plainly as possible should be elucidating not misleading
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  My favorite support data is that you can literally shine a laser at the retro reflector they put on the moon to measure distance.
  - FindMySocks 6y ago
    Surely that can be easily waved away in the minds of an ignorant by saying it's just a shiny rock, crashed satellite, ice patch or some other silly nonsense.
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      Explain to them how the bright traffic signs work. If they were just mirrors, they would be invisible at night.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    No one's saying we didn't send artefacts to the moon ... {Actually, done prior probably say the moon doesn't even exist, but I think this makes the point - there's a plausible reason for a reflector being there that doesn't require a manned moon-landing. Just saying that for the sake of argument. Though I did see a program as a teenager that presented some convincing 'evidence' that NASA/USA Government were lying to the public. Then it comes down to whether you trust the USAG who you know have lied access manipulated public perceptions on a grand scale, or trust random program makers who you don't yet know to be liars.}
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      In those cases I usually change tactics and steelman believing the moon doesn’t exist (it’s just projected to the sky) ;) Then you can see if they have the reasoning skills to convince themselves the moon isn’t a projection.

beowulfey 6y ago

well, often the benefit of listing out as much evidence as possible (basically, look at the facts on hand) is that it can help clarify WHICH theory makes the most sense

eightysixfour 6y ago
I think this is one of those areas where our day-to-day probability heuristics do not align with the actual probabilities. So, as an individual, trying to decide which theory makes the most sense is a Sisyphean task. For example, I have seen a lot of comments that the closest natural COVID reservoir is 500 miles away, that sounds like a lot! But the average tractor trailer can cover that in a day no problem, so our heuristic needs to include how many trucks are moving between those areas, how many have come in contact with wildlife or are transporting it, etc. Since it only takes one transmission the problem rapidly becomes too complex. Fortunately the answer has no bearing on decisions being made in the here and now, so we can afford to wait and let experts do their jobs and hope we take the right steps long term if it was something that could have been avoided.
- ricksunny 6y ago
  > we can afford to wait and let experts do their jobs We can emphatically not expect the experts to do their job. Those cited as having the most expertise (virologists who undertake gain-of-function research, symbolically under the auspices of HHS’ toothless P3CO regulation framework) have the most to lose from a finding that the pandemic’s source was a lab leak. They lose all the grants and public financial support, not to mention endure unending public scorn that will haunt the their careers for the duration. For evidence that the relevant, oft-cited scientists act precisely this way, one need no more than to look at @BlockedVirology’s retweets: https://twitter.com/blockedvirology https://twitter.com/blockedvirology Scientists are human - I would highly recommend disabusing oneself of the notion that they might act contrary to overwhelming human incentives in as weighty a context as investigating the origins of the greatest pandemic in a century. The only alternative in the face of this embedded conflict of interest in our (society’s) ability to credibly investigate the pandemic’s origins is for technically-minded individuals (who don’t run multimillion dollar virology labs) to avail themselves of the findings gathered to date on the origins (there’s lots! Just need to take a look, the contributors to the above feed are a good place to start), and advocate to their representatives for a credible & even-handed origins investigation. Failing that, expect no origin beyond all reasonable doubt to be credibly identified in our lifetimes.
  - eightysixfour 6y ago
    Scientists are human, and they will make mistakes, the benefit is that there are many of them with different incentives. The "Blocked Virology" twitter account references a lot of previous lab escapes to say that lab escapes are possible, this is good evidence against your point - how do you think we know about the previous escapes? It wasn't a random group of technically-minded individuals, it was experts that tracked it down. The level of arrogance necessary to believe that any "technically minded" individual can find where the virus originated is mind blowing to me. Logic isn't the end-all-be-all, for many fields you must also have knowledge. We should not ignore the blindspots that deep knowledge can introduce but to just dismiss it is absurd.
    - katbyte 6y ago
      There has never been a lab leak leading to a global pandemic and mass deaths, I don’t think you can compare now to anything other then maybe the Spanish flu
      - tripletao 6y ago
        The 1977 flu pandemic was very likely a lab escape. From the NEJM: > The reemergence was probably an accidental release from a laboratory source in the setting of waning population immunity to H1 and N1 antigens https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra0904322 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra0904322 About 700k people died worldwide. That's more than a typical flu season but not grossly so, and it's impossible to say with certainty what kind of flu season would have occurred naturally without the escape. https://nouvelles.umontreal.ca/en/article/2018/01/19/you-re-more-likely-to-die-from-the-h1n1-flu-if-you-were-born-in-1957/ https://nouvelles.umontreal.ca/en/article/2018/01/19/you-re-... SARS-CoV-2 is certainly worse. The 1977 flu pandemic is still a lot of deaths, though, and surprisingly little-known.
  - jeduehr 6y ago
    Actually a lot of virologists are also critical of GOF. Just look at public health people, epidemiologists. Folks like Andrea Sant, Michael Osterholm, David Topham, etc. These folks criticize GOF all the time, and are a big part of the group that helps write regulations to make Virology research safe. But you know what these same virologists also don't believe? That SARS-COV-2 was cooked up in a lab. That should tell you something. Science is adversarial, and virology is no exception. That's why when consensus exists about something, you should respect it. There is quite a large consensus about this one.

darepublic 6y ago

You can present evidence for and against moon landing being a hoax and if done properly the delusional theory among them (hoax) should be really clear. Presenting the evidence as plainly as possible should be elucidating not misleading

mensetmanusman 6y ago
My favorite support data is that you can literally shine a laser at the retro reflector they put on the moon to measure distance.
- FindMySocks 6y ago
  Surely that can be easily waved away in the minds of an ignorant by saying it's just a shiny rock, crashed satellite, ice patch or some other silly nonsense.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    Explain to them how the bright traffic signs work. If they were just mirrors, they would be invisible at night.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  No one's saying we didn't send artefacts to the moon ... {Actually, done prior probably say the moon doesn't even exist, but I think this makes the point - there's a plausible reason for a reflector being there that doesn't require a manned moon-landing. Just saying that for the sake of argument. Though I did see a program as a teenager that presented some convincing 'evidence' that NASA/USA Government were lying to the public. Then it comes down to whether you trust the USAG who you know have lied access manipulated public perceptions on a grand scale, or trust random program makers who you don't yet know to be liars.}
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    In those cases I usually change tactics and steelman believing the moon doesn’t exist (it’s just projected to the sky) ;) Then you can see if they have the reasoning skills to convince themselves the moon isn’t a projection.