4 ms·

And if the article tells the truth? Why would author's racial preferences matter? You might be surprised how much of modern tech was developed by racists and ot

by FpUser 6y ago

And if the article tells the truth? Why would author's racial preferences matter? You might be surprised how much of modern tech was developed by racists and other bad apples. If you are from the US try reading how your rocket / space industry had been developed for example.

brendoelfrendo 6y ago
I mean, it's directly relevant: the man regurgitates tired, bad science to justify a racist worldview. His trustworthiness in this domain is compromised.
- FpUser 6y ago
  I only care about one thing whether that virus came out as the result of aforementioned research. I could not care less about author's worldview and whether he eats babies for breakfast.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    >I only care about one thing whether that virus came out as the result of aforementioned research Then you should read what scientists write, not science journalists. If you can't actually understand the science, which is perfectly reasonable given that most of us are laymen, you can read scientific journalists, but then you need to acknowledge that you operate on trust, which would mean you need to take the authors biases into account, and don't pretend you 'only care about the science'. Wade has been widely criticized on mistakes in scientific accuracy have been pointed out concerning his last books on genetics and race, and he appeared to have some sort of ideological axe to grind. The same may very well be the case here. It's trivial to misrepresent science in subtle ways to tilt a discussion one way or the other on controversial issues such as this, so author credibility matters.
    - rramadass 6y ago
      Thank you for putting it so clearly! It is disingenuous to claim to care about Science while willfully ignoring the biases inherent in the narrative of presentation.
    - FpUser 6y ago
      >"and don't pretend you 'only care about the science'." I don't. The question was did the virus come out as the result of that research or not. The answer is simple yes or no. No need to dance around.
      - smcl 6y ago
        The point is that you seem to be arriving at that yes/no answer as a result of reading the words of someone whose credibility and impartiality is in question.
        FpUser 6y ago
        Well here is surprise for you. I used to be a scientist myself. Just in a totally different area. From my experience being racist and impartiality to results in one's profession are orthogonal. All the arguments I see so far are of "but, but he cheats on his wife" quality.
        smcl 6y ago
        This isn't doubting someone's opinion because of a completely unrelated character trait. Taking your examples, if he was cheating on his wife or eating babies (?) that probably wouldn't have any bearing on this. I think the issue people have is that someone with pretty questionable opinions on race has got some other opinions on a hot topic that has been tinged with racist rhetoric from the right. I can totally see why that'd be enough for some to pass on it and say "nah, no thanks".
        FpUser 6y ago
        >"I can totally see why that'd be enough for some to pass on it and say "nah, no thanks". I understand. This is their choice. We do not have to agree.
      - altacc 6y ago
        There is no clear yes/no answer here. Without a smoking gun either way there is a scale of probability/certainty and everyone who looks into this falls somewhere on that scale based on their experience, ideology, biases, research, etc... Personally I think lab origin is unlikely as whilst it's possible to describe how it could happen, that's not proof it did actually happen. Too often people mistake theoretical actions for proof of action. The probability of natural origin still ranks higher for me but I wouldn't bet my house on it.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      Then you should read what scientists write, not science journalists You can read both. In this case science journalists are both explaining the science (quite well, in this case) and also alledging bad behaviour by scientists, and if he's right (which again, seems to be the case given the evidence presented) then only reading what those very same scientists have written would leave you less well informed.
christocracy 6y ago
>You might be surprised how much of modern tech was developed by racists and other bad apples William Shockley, co-inventor of the transistor. See section “Views on Race and Eugenics”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley
- DSingularity 6y ago
  Yeah, and for that reason we should forever regard him with disdain. Even if he invented everything we use today. We should always bring it up and highlight his racist views. My problem with this isn’t that a racist position exists. It’s that racism thrives and grows when you don’t point it out in a manner which leaves a stain on the racist. Those who are secretly racist will be emboldened by a publicly accept racist and it will give them some path to expressing or acting on their racist views which they have otherwise suppressed. So should we read the article? Maybe. But should we share it while saying “hey look what this known racist is saying”? I don’t think so.
swader999 6y ago
No kidding. Operation paperclip comes to mind.
altacc 6y ago
This article should definitely be read as an opinion piece, not objective analysis to conclude the truth. Regardless of his personal views it's his methods that introduce a lot of doubt. The author has previously dismissed large swathes of scientific consensus against his publications as ideologically driven. He takes fringe positions and introduces a lot of selection and confirmation bias to support his opinion. He writes very well and some of the ideas are interesting but they should definitely be weighted up against a more balanced analyses.
- FpUser 6y ago
  As I've already said elsewhere I only interested in an answer to whether this virus has been created artificially. The author are you already said has some "interesting ideas". And the real answer to this question if known has definitely nothing to do with this author's views on racial subjects as he is in no position to answer it accurately in a first place. He just raises concerns.

by FpUser 6y ago

brendoelfrendo 6y ago

I mean, it's directly relevant: the man regurgitates tired, bad science to justify a racist worldview. His trustworthiness in this domain is compromised.

FpUser 6y ago
I only care about one thing whether that virus came out as the result of aforementioned research. I could not care less about author's worldview and whether he eats babies for breakfast.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >I only care about one thing whether that virus came out as the result of aforementioned research Then you should read what scientists write, not science journalists. If you can't actually understand the science, which is perfectly reasonable given that most of us are laymen, you can read scientific journalists, but then you need to acknowledge that you operate on trust, which would mean you need to take the authors biases into account, and don't pretend you 'only care about the science'. Wade has been widely criticized on mistakes in scientific accuracy have been pointed out concerning his last books on genetics and race, and he appeared to have some sort of ideological axe to grind. The same may very well be the case here. It's trivial to misrepresent science in subtle ways to tilt a discussion one way or the other on controversial issues such as this, so author credibility matters.
  - rramadass 6y ago
    Thank you for putting it so clearly! It is disingenuous to claim to care about Science while willfully ignoring the biases inherent in the narrative of presentation.
  - FpUser 6y ago
    >"and don't pretend you 'only care about the science'." I don't. The question was did the virus come out as the result of that research or not. The answer is simple yes or no. No need to dance around.
    - smcl 6y ago
      The point is that you seem to be arriving at that yes/no answer as a result of reading the words of someone whose credibility and impartiality is in question.
      - FpUser 6y ago
        Well here is surprise for you. I used to be a scientist myself. Just in a totally different area. From my experience being racist and impartiality to results in one's profession are orthogonal. All the arguments I see so far are of "but, but he cheats on his wife" quality.
        smcl 6y ago
        This isn't doubting someone's opinion because of a completely unrelated character trait. Taking your examples, if he was cheating on his wife or eating babies (?) that probably wouldn't have any bearing on this. I think the issue people have is that someone with pretty questionable opinions on race has got some other opinions on a hot topic that has been tinged with racist rhetoric from the right. I can totally see why that'd be enough for some to pass on it and say "nah, no thanks".
        FpUser 6y ago
        >"I can totally see why that'd be enough for some to pass on it and say "nah, no thanks". I understand. This is their choice. We do not have to agree.
    - altacc 6y ago
      There is no clear yes/no answer here. Without a smoking gun either way there is a scale of probability/certainty and everyone who looks into this falls somewhere on that scale based on their experience, ideology, biases, research, etc... Personally I think lab origin is unlikely as whilst it's possible to describe how it could happen, that's not proof it did actually happen. Too often people mistake theoretical actions for proof of action. The probability of natural origin still ranks higher for me but I wouldn't bet my house on it.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    Then you should read what scientists write, not science journalists You can read both. In this case science journalists are both explaining the science (quite well, in this case) and also alledging bad behaviour by scientists, and if he's right (which again, seems to be the case given the evidence presented) then only reading what those very same scientists have written would leave you less well informed.

christocracy 6y ago

>You might be surprised how much of modern tech was developed by racists and other bad apples William Shockley, co-inventor of the transistor. See section “Views on Race and Eugenics”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley

DSingularity 6y ago
Yeah, and for that reason we should forever regard him with disdain. Even if he invented everything we use today. We should always bring it up and highlight his racist views. My problem with this isn’t that a racist position exists. It’s that racism thrives and grows when you don’t point it out in a manner which leaves a stain on the racist. Those who are secretly racist will be emboldened by a publicly accept racist and it will give them some path to expressing or acting on their racist views which they have otherwise suppressed. So should we read the article? Maybe. But should we share it while saying “hey look what this known racist is saying”? I don’t think so.

swader999 6y ago

No kidding. Operation paperclip comes to mind.

altacc 6y ago

This article should definitely be read as an opinion piece, not objective analysis to conclude the truth. Regardless of his personal views it's his methods that introduce a lot of doubt. The author has previously dismissed large swathes of scientific consensus against his publications as ideologically driven. He takes fringe positions and introduces a lot of selection and confirmation bias to support his opinion. He writes very well and some of the ideas are interesting but they should definitely be weighted up against a more balanced analyses.

FpUser 6y ago
As I've already said elsewhere I only interested in an answer to whether this virus has been created artificially. The author are you already said has some "interesting ideas". And the real answer to this question if known has definitely nothing to do with this author's views on racial subjects as he is in no position to answer it accurately in a first place. He just raises concerns.