3 ms·

It is reasonable & responsible to downplay theories that get constructed in absence of sufficient and meaningfully qualified evidence.

dabbledash 5y ago
GP didn’t say “if you thought there was insufficient evidence before, you have some reflecting to do!”
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  I'm advocating a principle that applies well to the OP.
  - dabbledash 5y ago
    Then your comment would make more sense as a response to the OP. If anything it seems like you would agree that in the absence of evidence humility is appropriate. People who acted like only fringe conspiracy theorists would even consider lab origins should reflect on their overconfidence and arrogance. It’s not a slam dunk either way and probably never will be, if i had to guess.
jtdev 5y ago
Animal origin theory/wet market/etc. have zero "meaningfully qualified evidence", are you as skeptical about those theories?
iammisc 5y ago
Such as the theory, presented often without evidence, that Sars-Cov-2 came from an imaginary population of bats in Wuhan?
- tshaddox 5y ago
  I mean, if it's a random comment on the Internet that makes a claim without presenting evidence, yet evidence does exist and is readily available, I don't have much of a problem with that. After all, you just made the claim that the theory is often present without evidence without actually presenting evidence of that claim. The real question is what evidence exists, not what evidence may or may not be presented with every online comment you may come across.
- andyxor 5y ago
  there is a lab called "Wuhan Coronavirus Research Lab" in the epicenter of coronavirus pandemic ground zero, and there is evidence of lab members seeking (and getting) grants in the US for dangerous gain-of-function research in the last few years, doesn't it make you stop and think?
- jayd16 5y ago
  Its fine to call someone crazy if they're posting about some coverup about bats without any evidence too, no?
  - iammisc 5y ago
    Except there was no bat coverup. The american media bought into that theory without any evidence while simultaneously castigating and ridiculing the lab leak one. The coverup of the lab leak theory in the press was thus in plain sight.
- tootie 5y ago
  The evidence is that every other coronavirus ever studied was zoonotic. It's still the most reasonable explanation. This story doesn't really move the needle.
015a 5y ago
Ok, but to play in this space for a second: toward the beginning of the pandemic when these theories were flying left and right, where exactly was the "sufficient and meaningfully qualified evidence" to assert that it had natural origins? Is the default to simply assert that, because it is biological, it naturally evolved? In the modern era we're in, I'm not convinced that is a sensible default. The most sensible default is to say we don't know, and all reasonable possibilities are being explored. That is not the same as saying that its reasonable and responsible to downplay a completely reasonable theory; for all that's holy, the virus was first discovered in the same city as China's only L4 biohazard lab studying human pathogens, literally that evidence alone is enough to say the lab-leak theory is "reasonable". Not a smoking gun! But REASONABLE and not worthy of downplay.
- mr_toad 5y ago
  > Is the default to simply assert that, because it is biological, it naturally evolved? Unless you’re a creationist, then yes?

dabbledash 5y ago

GP didn’t say “if you thought there was insufficient evidence before, you have some reflecting to do!”

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
I'm advocating a principle that applies well to the OP.
- dabbledash 5y ago
  Then your comment would make more sense as a response to the OP. If anything it seems like you would agree that in the absence of evidence humility is appropriate. People who acted like only fringe conspiracy theorists would even consider lab origins should reflect on their overconfidence and arrogance. It’s not a slam dunk either way and probably never will be, if i had to guess.

jtdev 5y ago

Animal origin theory/wet market/etc. have zero "meaningfully qualified evidence", are you as skeptical about those theories?

iammisc 5y ago

Such as the theory, presented often without evidence, that Sars-Cov-2 came from an imaginary population of bats in Wuhan?

tshaddox 5y ago
I mean, if it's a random comment on the Internet that makes a claim without presenting evidence, yet evidence does exist and is readily available, I don't have much of a problem with that. After all, you just made the claim that the theory is often present without evidence without actually presenting evidence of that claim. The real question is what evidence exists, not what evidence may or may not be presented with every online comment you may come across.
andyxor 5y ago
there is a lab called "Wuhan Coronavirus Research Lab" in the epicenter of coronavirus pandemic ground zero, and there is evidence of lab members seeking (and getting) grants in the US for dangerous gain-of-function research in the last few years, doesn't it make you stop and think?
jayd16 5y ago
Its fine to call someone crazy if they're posting about some coverup about bats without any evidence too, no?
- iammisc 5y ago
  Except there was no bat coverup. The american media bought into that theory without any evidence while simultaneously castigating and ridiculing the lab leak one. The coverup of the lab leak theory in the press was thus in plain sight.
tootie 5y ago
The evidence is that every other coronavirus ever studied was zoonotic. It's still the most reasonable explanation. This story doesn't really move the needle.

015a 5y ago

Ok, but to play in this space for a second: toward the beginning of the pandemic when these theories were flying left and right, where exactly was the "sufficient and meaningfully qualified evidence" to assert that it had natural origins? Is the default to simply assert that, because it is biological, it naturally evolved? In the modern era we're in, I'm not convinced that is a sensible default. The most sensible default is to say we don't know, and all reasonable possibilities are being explored. That is not the same as saying that its reasonable and responsible to downplay a completely reasonable theory; for all that's holy, the virus was first discovered in the same city as China's only L4 biohazard lab studying human pathogens, literally that evidence alone is enough to say the lab-leak theory is "reasonable". Not a smoking gun! But REASONABLE and not worthy of downplay.

mr_toad 5y ago
> Is the default to simply assert that, because it is biological, it naturally evolved? Unless you’re a creationist, then yes?