3 ms·

There's an alleged whistleblower that says it's a lab leak. Someone that was on the ground and had access to information. That's not a conspiracy theory. Whe

There's an alleged whistleblower that says it's a lab leak. Someone that was on the ground and had access to information. That's not a conspiracy theory. Whether or not you believe this person, that's up to you.

moate 5y ago
Let's break down the phrase: "Conspiracy": A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful; the action of plotting or conspiring. "Theory": A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. What you're offering is a conspiracy theory. It's a possible explanation for an event that alleges a conspiracy (either the cover up of an accidental leak or malicious intentional leak). Adding "do your own research/it's up to you to believe" at the end of a conspiracy theory doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  The phrase "conspiracy theory" carries baggage beyond that of the individual definitions of the two words.
  - moate 5y ago
    Oh I get that, but that's my point. Saying "this isn't a conspiracy theory because that phrase has negative connotations I don't want associated with MY conspiracy theory" isn't going to make it not a conspiracy theory. I firmly believe Epstein didn't kill himself. I'm aware it's a conspiracy theory. Let's call a spade a spade.
- linuxftw 5y ago
  Here's a 'conspiracy theory:' I think org XYZ is doing nefarious things because X happened and it's in their best interest to cover it up. See, there's no first hand evidence, there's just raw speculation. A whistleblower, on the other hand, claims to have a 1st hand account of nefarious or at the least misleading actions of a particular entity. I didn't offer any theories. The person making the claim isn't offering theories, they're offering first hand accounts. If you say this person is lying for political purposes, it's you who's creating a conspiracy theory.
  - moate 5y ago
    Sometimes I like to use the following example when it comes to semantics and discourse: If you start a sentence with the phrase "This isn't a sex thing, but..." no matter what you say afterwards will be interpreted as having possible sexual meanings. If you want to frame something by saying it's not something else, people will make the connection. Why? Because you made it for them.
    - linuxftw 5y ago
      The first one to mention conspiracy theory was the poster I originally responded to (possibly you?). When I read "conspiracy theory" I think to myself "this person gets their facts from CNN and no place else." Just ignore the man behind the curtain.
junon 5y ago
Contrary to popular belief (it seems), not all scientists are in cahoots with all other scientists worldwide. Especially not those in China. So yes, I believe this person (these people, actually) as they are both close friends and some of the smartest people I know.
- linuxftw 5y ago
  Just because you believe them and they're smart, doesn't mean they have all the information. So, you can take the opinion of people that weren't physically present at the lab, or you can take the account of a whistleblower who claims to have been physically present and part of an investigation.
  - junon 5y ago
    That's a bizarre and entirely unrealistic dichotomy. I could make a similar one for the other side of the debate, too. But I'll refrain because it's not how scientific discourse should work.
    - linuxftw 5y ago
      You're choosing to ignore a whistle blower because it conflicts with your friends opinions, opinions that aren't most likely 1st hand accounts. If you're expecting an organization to just willfully admit negligence or wrong doing, especially if they took actions to cover it up (according to the whistle blower), when has that EVER happened? Do we have the lab records and transaction logs? Are those records able to be tampered with easily? Who, that has subpoena power, is actually investigating? Does anyone have the power to carry out an actual investigation? I don't understand why you're placing your faith in a political system.
      - junon 5y ago
        > You're choosing to ignore a whistle blower I'm choosing to be skeptical of a single person's claim. I never said I ignored them. > because it conflicts with your friends opinions No, because my friends' expert conclusions based on all of the available data conflicts with the "word" of a single, anonymous source. There's nothing that states whistleblowers are telling the truth or that they can be trusted. > If you're expecting an organization to just willfully admit negligence or wrong doing, especially if they took actions to cover it up (according to the whistle blower), when has that EVER happened? That's beside the point I made to begin with. I don't see how it's relevant. The dealings of the CCP do not change how SARS-COVID-2 is structured. > I don't understand why you're placing your faith in a political system. I am, expressly, not doing that. I'm placing faith in people who understand infectious diseases more than some random person on Hacker News - and more than myself, at that.

moate 5y ago

Let's break down the phrase: "Conspiracy": A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful; the action of plotting or conspiring. "Theory": A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. What you're offering is a conspiracy theory. It's a possible explanation for an event that alleges a conspiracy (either the cover up of an accidental leak or malicious intentional leak). Adding "do your own research/it's up to you to believe" at the end of a conspiracy theory doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory.

josephcsible 5y ago
The phrase "conspiracy theory" carries baggage beyond that of the individual definitions of the two words.
- moate 5y ago
  Oh I get that, but that's my point. Saying "this isn't a conspiracy theory because that phrase has negative connotations I don't want associated with MY conspiracy theory" isn't going to make it not a conspiracy theory. I firmly believe Epstein didn't kill himself. I'm aware it's a conspiracy theory. Let's call a spade a spade.
linuxftw 5y ago
Here's a 'conspiracy theory:' I think org XYZ is doing nefarious things because X happened and it's in their best interest to cover it up. See, there's no first hand evidence, there's just raw speculation. A whistleblower, on the other hand, claims to have a 1st hand account of nefarious or at the least misleading actions of a particular entity. I didn't offer any theories. The person making the claim isn't offering theories, they're offering first hand accounts. If you say this person is lying for political purposes, it's you who's creating a conspiracy theory.
- moate 5y ago
  Sometimes I like to use the following example when it comes to semantics and discourse: If you start a sentence with the phrase "This isn't a sex thing, but..." no matter what you say afterwards will be interpreted as having possible sexual meanings. If you want to frame something by saying it's not something else, people will make the connection. Why? Because you made it for them.
  - linuxftw 5y ago
    The first one to mention conspiracy theory was the poster I originally responded to (possibly you?). When I read "conspiracy theory" I think to myself "this person gets their facts from CNN and no place else." Just ignore the man behind the curtain.

junon 5y ago

Contrary to popular belief (it seems), not all scientists are in cahoots with all other scientists worldwide. Especially not those in China. So yes, I believe this person (these people, actually) as they are both close friends and some of the smartest people I know.

linuxftw 5y ago
Just because you believe them and they're smart, doesn't mean they have all the information. So, you can take the opinion of people that weren't physically present at the lab, or you can take the account of a whistleblower who claims to have been physically present and part of an investigation.
- junon 5y ago
  That's a bizarre and entirely unrealistic dichotomy. I could make a similar one for the other side of the debate, too. But I'll refrain because it's not how scientific discourse should work.
  - linuxftw 5y ago
    You're choosing to ignore a whistle blower because it conflicts with your friends opinions, opinions that aren't most likely 1st hand accounts. If you're expecting an organization to just willfully admit negligence or wrong doing, especially if they took actions to cover it up (according to the whistle blower), when has that EVER happened? Do we have the lab records and transaction logs? Are those records able to be tampered with easily? Who, that has subpoena power, is actually investigating? Does anyone have the power to carry out an actual investigation? I don't understand why you're placing your faith in a political system.
    - junon 5y ago
      > You're choosing to ignore a whistle blower I'm choosing to be skeptical of a single person's claim. I never said I ignored them. > because it conflicts with your friends opinions No, because my friends' expert conclusions based on all of the available data conflicts with the "word" of a single, anonymous source. There's nothing that states whistleblowers are telling the truth or that they can be trusted. > If you're expecting an organization to just willfully admit negligence or wrong doing, especially if they took actions to cover it up (according to the whistle blower), when has that EVER happened? That's beside the point I made to begin with. I don't see how it's relevant. The dealings of the CCP do not change how SARS-COVID-2 is structured. > I don't understand why you're placing your faith in a political system. I am, expressly, not doing that. I'm placing faith in people who understand infectious diseases more than some random person on Hacker News - and more than myself, at that.