4 ms·

I'm not impressed with this article, which is long on appeals to authority and short on actual analysis and facts. I recommend this one: https://thebulletin.or

by dTal 5y ago

I'm not impressed with this article, which is long on appeals to authority and short on actual analysis and facts. I recommend this one: https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop... And this one: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-...

throwaway4good 5y ago
I recommend the official who report and also the YouTube channel / podcast this week in virology.
- dTal 5y ago
  As the first link details, the "official WHO report" is marred by some pretty serious undeclared conflicts of interest.
  - throwaway4good 5y ago
    The podcast I mentioned has interviews with The Who people and episodes that walk thru even the wildest conspiracies. All done by actual virologists.
ismail 5y ago
I have to agree. thebulletin article lays out the evidence pretty clearly unlike this one.
deeviant 5y ago
> I'm not impressed with this article "I don't like those facts, I like these facts."
- tacitusarc 5y ago
  Rather “This lacks facts, read other articles with facts.”
- dTal 5y ago
  Is there some shibboleth I can say to convince you that I am evaluating these articles on the strength of their arguments, rather than their conformance to a preselected conclusion? Or is the assumption of bad faith simply my doom?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
cturner 5y ago
The scientific approach is to form hypotheses, and then seek facts that will allow us to rule on them. But the character of the epidemic has been a battle of wills between a priesthood of experts and their reactionaries.
- dTal 5y ago
  The sad thing is that I am sure there are many scientists who cleave to those ideals. But it seems academia is no more immune to tribal groupthink than the rest of us, and it's usually a bad career move to fight the tide.

by dTal 5y ago

throwaway4good 5y ago

I recommend the official who report and also the YouTube channel / podcast this week in virology.

dTal 5y ago
As the first link details, the "official WHO report" is marred by some pretty serious undeclared conflicts of interest.
- throwaway4good 5y ago
  The podcast I mentioned has interviews with The Who people and episodes that walk thru even the wildest conspiracies. All done by actual virologists.

ismail 5y ago

I have to agree. thebulletin article lays out the evidence pretty clearly unlike this one.

deeviant 5y ago

> I'm not impressed with this article "I don't like those facts, I like these facts."

tacitusarc 5y ago
Rather “This lacks facts, read other articles with facts.”
dTal 5y ago
Is there some shibboleth I can say to convince you that I am evaluating these articles on the strength of their arguments, rather than their conformance to a preselected conclusion? Or is the assumption of bad faith simply my doom?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

cturner 5y ago

The scientific approach is to form hypotheses, and then seek facts that will allow us to rule on them. But the character of the epidemic has been a battle of wills between a priesthood of experts and their reactionaries.

dTal 5y ago
The sad thing is that I am sure there are many scientists who cleave to those ideals. But it seems academia is no more immune to tribal groupthink than the rest of us, and it's usually a bad career move to fight the tide.