4 ms·

>"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 s

by 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.
- FpUser 6y ago
  >"There is no clear yes/no answer here" There is. We just do not know it. But somebody does.
  - altacc 6y ago
    Well, no. I was referring to the question posed related to available knowledge and your article. But your statement makes an assumption that it’s origin is a lab, as that would be the only way that somebody would know for sure. If it’s natural in origin then that person does not exist, or if they did would publish their research and claim the glory. So you’re taking a position on the scale of certainty which is dependent upon your own conclusions based on uncertainty.

by FpUser 6y ago

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.

FpUser 6y ago
>"There is no clear yes/no answer here" There is. We just do not know it. But somebody does.
- altacc 6y ago
  Well, no. I was referring to the question posed related to available knowledge and your article. But your statement makes an assumption that it’s origin is a lab, as that would be the only way that somebody would know for sure. If it’s natural in origin then that person does not exist, or if they did would publish their research and claim the glory. So you’re taking a position on the scale of certainty which is dependent upon your own conclusions based on uncertainty.