5 ms·

Arrgh, you're doing it too! The core essence of a conspiracy theory, the thing that demands it be debunked, is that it's unfounded. It's an attractive idea wi

Arrgh, you're doing it too! The core essence of a conspiracy theory, the thing that demands it be debunked, is that it's unfounded. It's an attractive idea without evidence, and one of the tools used in propagating it is to flip the script and point out that the absence of evidence is in fact "absence of disproof", and thus... evidence. So what are you doing? You're taking an assertion without support (that covid is a lab leak) and then framing it as a legitimate argument by pointing out (1) that it is "not that clear cut" (by which I assume you mean that there's no evidence but not disproof either) and (2) that people who say that it doesn't have support were somehow arguing in bad faith with "poorly constructed" arguments. This isn't a legitimate fact under dispute. It's just not. There's no evidence, literally, beyond the mailing address of the lab. > In my opinion, when something is debunked, it should be done in the most rigorous manner and stay as politically neutral as possible. In my opinion an argument debunking something should be done with simple facts, irrespective of political concomity. Being wrong isn't a political opinion.

guerrilla 5y ago
> that it is "not that clear cut" (by which I assume you mean that there's no evidence but not disproof either) They're referring to a post made here the other day suggesting that there may actually be evidence that is was a lab leak.
- newacct583 5y ago
  And you're doing it too! Saying there "may actually be evidence" is not saying there is evidence. There is no evidence. The WHO conceded that more investigation is needed in a report that deemed the lab leak hypothesis "extremely unlikely". But to the conspiracist mind, any statement other than an unambiguous "THIS IS UNCONTROVERTABLY FALSE" becomes twisted into something that sounds like evidence for the conspiracy. Which is why debunkings need to be firm and clear. Admitting that something is possible in theory is just nodding to people who want to hear something very different.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    > There is no evidence I don't remember it well enough to say whether I consider it evidence or not. If you haven't seen what I'm referring to then I think you're just being dismissive. In any case, there was a post here many considered credible that claimed to have evidence that it could have come from a lab. Do with that what you will. In the mean time, I don't know whether it came from a lab or not and I don't need to.
    - newacct583 5y ago
      Just listen to yourself: you admit you don't have evidence and that you haven't seen (or just don't remember having seen) any. But you cite "many" people who "consider it credible" as evidence anyway. Because you want to believe it, you're willing to cede logic and decisionmaking to the internet crowd, figure that someone must have done the homework. And that's how we get conspiracy theories. No one did the homework. There is no completed homework. You're all just cribbing from a faked assignment.
      - guerrilla 5y ago
        > But you cite "many" people who "consider it credible" as evidence anyway. That's not what's happening here at all. I responded to you originally to tell you what someone was referring to. > Because you want to believe it, you're willing to cede logic and decisionmaking to the internet crowd, figure that someone must have done the homework No I don't want to believe it and you need to stop. I never knew, never cared, I still don't know and still don't care. You're tilting at windmills here.
  - thu2111 5y ago
    Let's strengthen the claim then. The article in question argued clearly and cogently that there is a lot of evidence that COVID was developed in a lab and then leaked, and specifically, far more evidence for that belief than evidence that the virus arose naturally. The article also provides evidence that virologists drastically over-stated their confidence in leaks being unlikely without having any reason to believe this is so, for career related reasons. Does that help? You're doing the same thing here that a lot of failed debunkers do: 1. Citing establishment authority as if it's the last word. By definition anyone who believes in a "conspiracy theory" has reached that point by concluding the authorities aren't being truthful. That's rather inherent in the nature of what a conspiracy theory is. 2. You aren't taking it seriously. If you were, you would have done a quick bit of Googling and encountered the articles in question that go into a lot of depth on the evidence of the lab leak hypothesis, including a lot of micro-biological evidence. 3. You're making statements that are clearly false. There is evidence, quite a lot of it. Perhaps you won't agree that it's strong enough, but to claim there is no evidence is false. When a debunker makes a statement like this and people know it's false, it degrades the credibility of the whole anti-theory-position, because now people start to suspect that the people denying there's a conspiracy don't really know what they're talking about.
spfzero 5y ago
A “conspiracy theory” implies a cover up. That’s very different than a hypothesis. Many hypotheses start out with no direct evidence, just an insight. Relativity is a good example. The hypothesis that Covid-19 escaped from a laboratory already has strong circumstantial evidence behind it. Lab escapes do happen, have happened, and the WIV is full of corona viruses under study. In fact it contains the closest relatives to Covid-19 known. Now all of that doesn’t prove anything. It’s just a reasonable hypothesis that’s not yet proven. To characterize it, though, as a “conspiracy theory”, seems disingenuous.
- newacct583 5y ago
  An argument that something could happen is not evidence that it did. It's not even "circumstantial" evidence that it did. The world is filled with potential catastrophes that could happen. Circumstantial evidence would be if you had a source from inside the lab -- a memo, maybe, or a leak from an intelligence agency that interviewed a whistleblower -- that told you they believed covid was a lab leak. Or maybe that they were working on something with features that match covid better than that bat virus does, etc... Absent that, sorry, you're engaged in a "conspiracy theory" in the vernacular. Hiding behind the dictionary definition of "conspiracy" isn't really helping your case.
  - spfzero 5y ago
    If you and I were walking down the street and saw a dead cat on the side of the road, I would tell you that cat was possibly hit by a car, and I'd be justified in saying that. I have only two pieces of circumstantial evidence: the location of the dead cat in the place where cars drive by, and the fact that cats are sometimes known to have been run over by cars. The WIV is in the exact place where the outbreak began, and houses the same strain of viruses, and researches them by breeding new variants. And, viruses have escaped from laboratories before. It occurs fairly regularly. This is far from a "conspiracy theory", not to mention that it doesn't even involve a conspiracy.
    - newacct583 5y ago

guerrilla 5y ago

> that it is "not that clear cut" (by which I assume you mean that there's no evidence but not disproof either) They're referring to a post made here the other day suggesting that there may actually be evidence that is was a lab leak.

newacct583 5y ago
And you're doing it too! Saying there "may actually be evidence" is not saying there is evidence. There is no evidence. The WHO conceded that more investigation is needed in a report that deemed the lab leak hypothesis "extremely unlikely". But to the conspiracist mind, any statement other than an unambiguous "THIS IS UNCONTROVERTABLY FALSE" becomes twisted into something that sounds like evidence for the conspiracy. Which is why debunkings need to be firm and clear. Admitting that something is possible in theory is just nodding to people who want to hear something very different.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  > There is no evidence I don't remember it well enough to say whether I consider it evidence or not. If you haven't seen what I'm referring to then I think you're just being dismissive. In any case, there was a post here many considered credible that claimed to have evidence that it could have come from a lab. Do with that what you will. In the mean time, I don't know whether it came from a lab or not and I don't need to.
  - newacct583 5y ago
    Just listen to yourself: you admit you don't have evidence and that you haven't seen (or just don't remember having seen) any. But you cite "many" people who "consider it credible" as evidence anyway. Because you want to believe it, you're willing to cede logic and decisionmaking to the internet crowd, figure that someone must have done the homework. And that's how we get conspiracy theories. No one did the homework. There is no completed homework. You're all just cribbing from a faked assignment.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      > But you cite "many" people who "consider it credible" as evidence anyway. That's not what's happening here at all. I responded to you originally to tell you what someone was referring to. > Because you want to believe it, you're willing to cede logic and decisionmaking to the internet crowd, figure that someone must have done the homework No I don't want to believe it and you need to stop. I never knew, never cared, I still don't know and still don't care. You're tilting at windmills here.
- thu2111 5y ago
  Let's strengthen the claim then. The article in question argued clearly and cogently that there is a lot of evidence that COVID was developed in a lab and then leaked, and specifically, far more evidence for that belief than evidence that the virus arose naturally. The article also provides evidence that virologists drastically over-stated their confidence in leaks being unlikely without having any reason to believe this is so, for career related reasons. Does that help? You're doing the same thing here that a lot of failed debunkers do: 1. Citing establishment authority as if it's the last word. By definition anyone who believes in a "conspiracy theory" has reached that point by concluding the authorities aren't being truthful. That's rather inherent in the nature of what a conspiracy theory is. 2. You aren't taking it seriously. If you were, you would have done a quick bit of Googling and encountered the articles in question that go into a lot of depth on the evidence of the lab leak hypothesis, including a lot of micro-biological evidence. 3. You're making statements that are clearly false. There is evidence, quite a lot of it. Perhaps you won't agree that it's strong enough, but to claim there is no evidence is false. When a debunker makes a statement like this and people know it's false, it degrades the credibility of the whole anti-theory-position, because now people start to suspect that the people denying there's a conspiracy don't really know what they're talking about.

spfzero 5y ago

A “conspiracy theory” implies a cover up. That’s very different than a hypothesis. Many hypotheses start out with no direct evidence, just an insight. Relativity is a good example. The hypothesis that Covid-19 escaped from a laboratory already has strong circumstantial evidence behind it. Lab escapes do happen, have happened, and the WIV is full of corona viruses under study. In fact it contains the closest relatives to Covid-19 known. Now all of that doesn’t prove anything. It’s just a reasonable hypothesis that’s not yet proven. To characterize it, though, as a “conspiracy theory”, seems disingenuous.

newacct583 5y ago
An argument that something could happen is not evidence that it did. It's not even "circumstantial" evidence that it did. The world is filled with potential catastrophes that could happen. Circumstantial evidence would be if you had a source from inside the lab -- a memo, maybe, or a leak from an intelligence agency that interviewed a whistleblower -- that told you they believed covid was a lab leak. Or maybe that they were working on something with features that match covid better than that bat virus does, etc... Absent that, sorry, you're engaged in a "conspiracy theory" in the vernacular. Hiding behind the dictionary definition of "conspiracy" isn't really helping your case.
- spfzero 5y ago
  If you and I were walking down the street and saw a dead cat on the side of the road, I would tell you that cat was possibly hit by a car, and I'd be justified in saying that. I have only two pieces of circumstantial evidence: the location of the dead cat in the place where cars drive by, and the fact that cats are sometimes known to have been run over by cars. The WIV is in the exact place where the outbreak began, and houses the same strain of viruses, and researches them by breeding new variants. And, viruses have escaped from laboratories before. It occurs fairly regularly. This is far from a "conspiracy theory", not to mention that it doesn't even involve a conspiracy.
  - newacct583 5y ago