5 ms·

> Only a small fraction of scientists actually believe the lab leak hypothesis Got a source for that? And, let's not forget that wholly insubstantial Daszak /

> Only a small fraction of scientists actually believe the lab leak hypothesis Got a source for that? And, let's not forget that wholly insubstantial Daszak / Lancet piece, used to justify massive censorship of the lab leak theory. Millions of posts discussing the lab leak hypothesis were scrubbed from FB and Twitter - even posts by legit scientists with highly valid and relevant points and questions.

civilized 5y ago
Having trouble finding my original source but I remember an NYT article that interviewed a bunch of virologists, and the consensus was that the vast majority of the community were unsure because the evidence so far was so limited. Only a tiny, vocal minority is going definitively one way or the other, putting forth arguments that are much flimsier than they sound. Believe me or no, that's what I remember in good faith. And I think it's supported by the fact that extremely few people with the relevant domain knowledge are coming public with a strong opinion either way. And don't believe stuff just because FB and Twitter censored it. They're not trying to hide the Truth, they just hate anti-establishment opinions regardless of whether those opinions are true. And things are not true just because they're anti-establishment. That's just the opposite end of conformity.
- coupdejarnac 5y ago
  The letter signed by scientists discrediting the lab leak theory has itself been discredited. You are far behind in the news. https://thepostmillennial.com/dr-daszak-bullied-fellow-scientists-into-signing-letter-denouncing-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory https://thepostmillennial.com/dr-daszak-bullied-fellow-scien...
  - civilized 5y ago
    I didn't care about that letter to begin with. Peter Daszak is obviously a creep trying to cover his ass. That doesn't change the fact that the origins of COVID are a hard scientific question that no one has figured out yet. If you're keeping up with the news, do you just read partisan polemics or do you actually keep up with the scientific developments? Here is an article on an exceptionally close bat coronavirus relative to the COVID coronavirus, which can bind to ACE2. The lab leak peanut gallery said such a thing didn't exist anywhere. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02596-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02596-2
    - coupdejarnac 5y ago
      Almost all the references from point to articles written by Chinese scientists in the last year. Color me skeptical. Who among the proponents of the lab leak theory claim that the virus doesn't occur in nature? Nobody I am aware of. Perhaps the kooks who claim covid was completely manmade as a bioweapon or something. There is no transparency on this issue with China. There's a reason why there is a dearth of evidence- it's all been suppressed or destroyed.
      - civilized 5y ago
        > Almost all the references from point to articles written by Chinese scientists in the last year. Color me skeptical. Except the first reference, which is the entire point of the article: French scientists found bat coronaviruses very similar to SARS-CoV-2 in Laos. No more partisan posturing please. You are straining to defend preconceived notions by ignoring new information, rather than paying curious attention to the world around you. Turn politics brain off, turn science brain on.
        coupdejarnac 5y ago
        No more partisan posturing please- look in the mirror, buddy.
        civilized 5y ago
        What's the point of responding to something I posted in a way that completely ignores the main point? The main finding in that Science paper was from a team with a French leader and zero Chinese co-authors, as far as I can tell from the surnames. Your level of trust in Chinese scientists is completely irrelevant to the point that was made. What are you trying to do here? If you're not trying to learn, are you trying to play political debate and beat me? There's no audience to impress. You either learn something from our conversation or you don't. That's all that can come of this.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > And don't believe stuff just because FB and Twitter censored it. They're not trying to hide the Truth, they just hate anti-establishment opinions regardless of whether those opinions are true. And things are not true just because they're anti-establishment. That's just the opposite end of conformity. There are two reasons people censor things. One is that they're authoritarians who don't want something true to be disseminated. In these cases the thing being censored is true. The other is that they're authoritarians too incompetent to convincingly demonstrate that something they believe to be false actually is false using evidence or reasoning, since otherwise they could do that in place of censorship. This level of incompetence is correlated with being factually incorrect, so the thing being censored in these cases is also true more often than not. That isn't to say that 100% of things being censored are true, or even 99%, because that would be too easy. But it's not a bad heuristic to expect that it's decently in excess of 50%.
  - civilized 5y ago
    This analysis misses that most of what people spread is bullshit: things they intuitively feel or want to be true, but which are difficult or impossible to prove or disprove. When bullshit spreads that authorities don't want spread, they censor. Neither party to the dynamic knows or cares if the bullshit is actually true or if there are compelling arguments either way. That would be too much work. Some day FB is going to censor some urban legend about zombies because it motivated some kid to kill another kid. Will you believe in zombies then?
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      You're just saying the same thing. Suppose the incompetent authorities aren't worse than random. They're just censoring whatever ambiguous things they don't like independent of their veracity. Then the expected chance that it's true is 50%. Coin flip. You add to that any amount of things censored intentionally because they know for sure that they're true and you're above 50%.
      - civilized 5y ago

civilized 5y ago

Having trouble finding my original source but I remember an NYT article that interviewed a bunch of virologists, and the consensus was that the vast majority of the community were unsure because the evidence so far was so limited. Only a tiny, vocal minority is going definitively one way or the other, putting forth arguments that are much flimsier than they sound. Believe me or no, that's what I remember in good faith. And I think it's supported by the fact that extremely few people with the relevant domain knowledge are coming public with a strong opinion either way. And don't believe stuff just because FB and Twitter censored it. They're not trying to hide the Truth, they just hate anti-establishment opinions regardless of whether those opinions are true. And things are not true just because they're anti-establishment. That's just the opposite end of conformity.

coupdejarnac 5y ago
The letter signed by scientists discrediting the lab leak theory has itself been discredited. You are far behind in the news. https://thepostmillennial.com/dr-daszak-bullied-fellow-scientists-into-signing-letter-denouncing-coronavirus-lab-leak-theory https://thepostmillennial.com/dr-daszak-bullied-fellow-scien...
- civilized 5y ago
  I didn't care about that letter to begin with. Peter Daszak is obviously a creep trying to cover his ass. That doesn't change the fact that the origins of COVID are a hard scientific question that no one has figured out yet. If you're keeping up with the news, do you just read partisan polemics or do you actually keep up with the scientific developments? Here is an article on an exceptionally close bat coronavirus relative to the COVID coronavirus, which can bind to ACE2. The lab leak peanut gallery said such a thing didn't exist anywhere. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02596-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02596-2
  - coupdejarnac 5y ago
    Almost all the references from point to articles written by Chinese scientists in the last year. Color me skeptical. Who among the proponents of the lab leak theory claim that the virus doesn't occur in nature? Nobody I am aware of. Perhaps the kooks who claim covid was completely manmade as a bioweapon or something. There is no transparency on this issue with China. There's a reason why there is a dearth of evidence- it's all been suppressed or destroyed.
    - civilized 5y ago
      > Almost all the references from point to articles written by Chinese scientists in the last year. Color me skeptical. Except the first reference, which is the entire point of the article: French scientists found bat coronaviruses very similar to SARS-CoV-2 in Laos. No more partisan posturing please. You are straining to defend preconceived notions by ignoring new information, rather than paying curious attention to the world around you. Turn politics brain off, turn science brain on.
      - coupdejarnac 5y ago
        No more partisan posturing please- look in the mirror, buddy.
        civilized 5y ago
        What's the point of responding to something I posted in a way that completely ignores the main point? The main finding in that Science paper was from a team with a French leader and zero Chinese co-authors, as far as I can tell from the surnames. Your level of trust in Chinese scientists is completely irrelevant to the point that was made. What are you trying to do here? If you're not trying to learn, are you trying to play political debate and beat me? There's no audience to impress. You either learn something from our conversation or you don't. That's all that can come of this.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> And don't believe stuff just because FB and Twitter censored it. They're not trying to hide the Truth, they just hate anti-establishment opinions regardless of whether those opinions are true. And things are not true just because they're anti-establishment. That's just the opposite end of conformity. There are two reasons people censor things. One is that they're authoritarians who don't want something true to be disseminated. In these cases the thing being censored is true. The other is that they're authoritarians too incompetent to convincingly demonstrate that something they believe to be false actually is false using evidence or reasoning, since otherwise they could do that in place of censorship. This level of incompetence is correlated with being factually incorrect, so the thing being censored in these cases is also true more often than not. That isn't to say that 100% of things being censored are true, or even 99%, because that would be too easy. But it's not a bad heuristic to expect that it's decently in excess of 50%.
- civilized 5y ago
  This analysis misses that most of what people spread is bullshit: things they intuitively feel or want to be true, but which are difficult or impossible to prove or disprove. When bullshit spreads that authorities don't want spread, they censor. Neither party to the dynamic knows or cares if the bullshit is actually true or if there are compelling arguments either way. That would be too much work. Some day FB is going to censor some urban legend about zombies because it motivated some kid to kill another kid. Will you believe in zombies then?
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    You're just saying the same thing. Suppose the incompetent authorities aren't worse than random. They're just censoring whatever ambiguous things they don't like independent of their veracity. Then the expected chance that it's true is 50%. Coin flip. You add to that any amount of things censored intentionally because they know for sure that they're true and you're above 50%.
    - civilized 5y ago