3 ms·

> What i find weird is the extreme and very unscientific agression among certain virologist: "If you think SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab, please unfollow m

> What i find weird is the extreme and very unscientific agression among certain virologist: "If you think SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab, please unfollow me. " Take a similar situation, imagine you were a structural engineer a decade ago and you tweeted "If you think 9/11 was an inside job because jet fuel can't melt steel beams, please unfollow me" or an astronaut tweeting "if you think we didn't land on the moon, please unfollow me" - whether the particular issue they've mentioned is true or false doesn't actually matter. They're trying to avoid the confrontationalists/conspiracy theorists following them/replying to their tweets. They're pretty much tweeting "don't @ me"

ekianjo 5y ago
> an astronaut tweeting "if you think we didn't land on the moon, please unfollow me" That's a pretty bad analogy. It's not like a lab leak is an extremely unlikely possibility at all. You should rather check who is funding the people who are making certain statements like that. Follow the money trail.
- usrusr 5y ago
  The analogy isn't really working, but the core is valid nonetheless: when an idea has few valid examiners and thousands of nutjob followers and they all want to talk to you, perhaps the latter even more than the former, then you'll eventually accept the risk of perhaps missing out on one of the few gems rather than suffering through the endless repetitions of all the others.
- SECProto 5y ago
  > It's not like a lab leak is an extremely unlikely possibility at all. The tweet was talking about the virus being engineered in a lab, not the possibility it escaped from a lab. Their opinion on the possibility of lab leak seems [1] quite reasonable to me - they believe it's possible but unlikely, and link to more info. > You should rather check who is funding the people who are making certain statements like that. Sure - do you have more info on his sources of grants etc? [1] https://twitter.com/macroliter/status/1391777097434152963 https://twitter.com/macroliter/status/1391777097434152963
  - programmarchy 5y ago
    What’s the difference between gain of function research and engineering? My understanding is that gain of function research accelerates the natural selection process to intentionally produce i.e. engineer desired mutations, like the capability of infecting human cells. Seems like a distinction without a difference.
    - unishark 5y ago
      Recently there was an article about software engineering where the (apparently non-technical) author defined colloquial phrases such as "to engineer an outcome" as to jerry-rig and generally do the opposite of any scientifically-principled process. I think the onus should be on the researchers to use clearer technical jargon or else it creates this kind of false dichotomy where a very narrow claim is used to imply much more. Frankly I think exploiting vagueness of words like that is sometimes intended, especially in titles/headlines. The careful technical interpretation is for CYA, while the broad colloquial interpretation is for social/political points and agendas.

ekianjo 5y ago

> an astronaut tweeting "if you think we didn't land on the moon, please unfollow me" That's a pretty bad analogy. It's not like a lab leak is an extremely unlikely possibility at all. You should rather check who is funding the people who are making certain statements like that. Follow the money trail.

usrusr 5y ago
The analogy isn't really working, but the core is valid nonetheless: when an idea has few valid examiners and thousands of nutjob followers and they all want to talk to you, perhaps the latter even more than the former, then you'll eventually accept the risk of perhaps missing out on one of the few gems rather than suffering through the endless repetitions of all the others.
SECProto 5y ago
> It's not like a lab leak is an extremely unlikely possibility at all. The tweet was talking about the virus being engineered in a lab, not the possibility it escaped from a lab. Their opinion on the possibility of lab leak seems [1] quite reasonable to me - they believe it's possible but unlikely, and link to more info. > You should rather check who is funding the people who are making certain statements like that. Sure - do you have more info on his sources of grants etc? [1] https://twitter.com/macroliter/status/1391777097434152963 https://twitter.com/macroliter/status/1391777097434152963
- programmarchy 5y ago
  What’s the difference between gain of function research and engineering? My understanding is that gain of function research accelerates the natural selection process to intentionally produce i.e. engineer desired mutations, like the capability of infecting human cells. Seems like a distinction without a difference.
  - unishark 5y ago
    Recently there was an article about software engineering where the (apparently non-technical) author defined colloquial phrases such as "to engineer an outcome" as to jerry-rig and generally do the opposite of any scientifically-principled process. I think the onus should be on the researchers to use clearer technical jargon or else it creates this kind of false dichotomy where a very narrow claim is used to imply much more. Frankly I think exploiting vagueness of words like that is sometimes intended, especially in titles/headlines. The careful technical interpretation is for CYA, while the broad colloquial interpretation is for social/political points and agendas.