3 ms·

Well, if the authors of these posts disagree, they should contact the government and offer their testimony as well, then we can consider their argument to hold

by forcry 5y ago

Well, if the authors of these posts disagree, they should contact the government and offer their testimony as well, then we can consider their argument to hold similar weight.

mikem170 5y ago
Congressional testimony tends to be more political than scientific, don't you think? Facts about DNA are still facts, regardless of who congress invites to speak before them. I never considered Congress to be gatekeepers of science.
- forcry 5y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=27757299 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=27757299
Smashure 5y ago
I’ve never seen someone say “their argument wasn’t made in front of congress, so it doesn’t hold the same weight” Attack their argument, not the location where they said the argument.
- forcry 5y ago
  >Attack their argument, not the location where they said the argument. As layman, I am powerless to do so. So I have to go by how much stake the proponents are putting in their argument. A testimony before government puts a lot more of their reputation and what not, at stake, than a blog post on a domain that one control, that has also has no real legal weight.
  - mikem170 5y ago
    I agree that it is tough that there are so many unfiltered voices on this. I've been giving the most weight to dna-based evidence, and explanations from virologists, and critiques from other virologists. It is understandable that others look for different sources of truth as they see fit.
    - forcry 5y ago
      The sad fact of the situation that argument by some proxy does not really work. A person goes like "Here is what my scientist say!" and the others are like "No, you are wrong! Here is what my scientist say". It is quite funny thing. But in the link you posted >https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/06/11/cggcgg-the-latest-new-old-wrinkle-in-the-covid-19-lab-leak-conspiracy-theory/ https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/06/11/cggcgg-the-latest... I often found that site to be less trustworthy because of a large part of the beginning of the article dedicated to Ad hominm attack. The most insulting is that they condemn admonim attackes, as and attemt to some kind of virtue signalling, and proceed to do it anyway. This can be consistently observed in articles of similar nature in that site. Again, since I am not able to judge the article technically, I take this as an indication that the author is extremely biased and is trying to mislead readers.
      - mikem170 5y ago
        I didn't like the beginning of that article either. I ran with it at that moment because it can take a while to dig up references and I really liked the DNA-level explanations in that one, which I've been following as much as I can and have grown to prefer. I feel like I've been able to cut through a lot of noise that way, and I'm learning a lot. The virologists describing things at the that level seem to have converged on similar set of possibilities, and the need for additional data to be certain of anything. It's my understanding that they've been saying "man-made impractical if not impossible, probably natural spillover which happens all the time, lab leak is not impossible, need more data" since last spring. It could be that non-virologists argue about this more than virologists... lol

by forcry 5y ago

Well, if the authors of these posts disagree, they should contact the government and offer their testimony as well, then we can consider their argument to hold similar weight.

mikem170 5y ago

Congressional testimony tends to be more political than scientific, don't you think? Facts about DNA are still facts, regardless of who congress invites to speak before them. I never considered Congress to be gatekeepers of science.

forcry 5y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=27757299 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=27757299

Smashure 5y ago

I’ve never seen someone say “their argument wasn’t made in front of congress, so it doesn’t hold the same weight” Attack their argument, not the location where they said the argument.

forcry 5y ago
>Attack their argument, not the location where they said the argument. As layman, I am powerless to do so. So I have to go by how much stake the proponents are putting in their argument. A testimony before government puts a lot more of their reputation and what not, at stake, than a blog post on a domain that one control, that has also has no real legal weight.
- mikem170 5y ago
  I agree that it is tough that there are so many unfiltered voices on this. I've been giving the most weight to dna-based evidence, and explanations from virologists, and critiques from other virologists. It is understandable that others look for different sources of truth as they see fit.
  - forcry 5y ago
    The sad fact of the situation that argument by some proxy does not really work. A person goes like "Here is what my scientist say!" and the others are like "No, you are wrong! Here is what my scientist say". It is quite funny thing. But in the link you posted >https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/06/11/cggcgg-the-latest-new-old-wrinkle-in-the-covid-19-lab-leak-conspiracy-theory/ https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/06/11/cggcgg-the-latest... I often found that site to be less trustworthy because of a large part of the beginning of the article dedicated to Ad hominm attack. The most insulting is that they condemn admonim attackes, as and attemt to some kind of virtue signalling, and proceed to do it anyway. This can be consistently observed in articles of similar nature in that site. Again, since I am not able to judge the article technically, I take this as an indication that the author is extremely biased and is trying to mislead readers.
    - mikem170 5y ago
      I didn't like the beginning of that article either. I ran with it at that moment because it can take a while to dig up references and I really liked the DNA-level explanations in that one, which I've been following as much as I can and have grown to prefer. I feel like I've been able to cut through a lot of noise that way, and I'm learning a lot. The virologists describing things at the that level seem to have converged on similar set of possibilities, and the need for additional data to be certain of anything. It's my understanding that they've been saying "man-made impractical if not impossible, probably natural spillover which happens all the time, lab leak is not impossible, need more data" since last spring. It could be that non-virologists argue about this more than virologists... lol