4 ms·

Yours is a super weird as hominem attack. The article you link is a very well written boon review which summarizes the arguments of the book. Ridley's review c

Yours is a super weird as hominem attack. The article you link is a very well written boon review which summarizes the arguments of the book. Ridley's review concludes that the theory that aids was transferred to humans through large-scale experimental vaccinations with vaccines made out of chimp liver is a theory worth further investigation. This is GOOD SCIENCE. You analyze data and put forward theory. I can't speak to the merits of the theory or the book being reviewed, but why would it discredit Ridley if he reads and reviews critical books and is open to exploring alternative theories?

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
We live in a world where, at least in some respect, when you are evaluating detailed technical analysis for which you are not an expert, it should be normal and expected to at least attempt to determine the level of expertise and trustworthiness of the source. For example, I think it is extremely relevant and valid to point out Daszek's clear conflict of interest when he put out his original letter. In this case, the fact that the writer has promoted other theories (importantly, theories analogous to the one under discussion) I consider completely crackpot certainly makes me look at the data here with a more skeptical eye. More importantly, there are plenty of other researchers who I consider much more credible who have raised loud alarms about the chance of a lab leak (e.g. Zeynep Tufekci's excellent analysis here, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-lab.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-lab.h... ). The fact that I can look at one piece of writing with a more critical eye based on the author's history of insincerity does not mean I discount more credible researchers making similar arguments.

4 ms·

Yours is a super weird as hominem attack. The article you link is a very well written boon review which summarizes the arguments of the book. Ridley's review c

by estaseuropano 5y ago

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
We live in a world where, at least in some respect, when you are evaluating detailed technical analysis for which you are not an expert, it should be normal and expected to at least attempt to determine the level of expertise and trustworthiness of the source. For example, I think it is extremely relevant and valid to point out Daszek's clear conflict of interest when he put out his original letter. In this case, the fact that the writer has promoted other theories (importantly, theories analogous to the one under discussion) I consider completely crackpot certainly makes me look at the data here with a more skeptical eye. More importantly, there are plenty of other researchers who I consider much more credible who have raised loud alarms about the chance of a lab leak (e.g. Zeynep Tufekci's excellent analysis here, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-lab.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-lab.h... ). The fact that I can look at one piece of writing with a more critical eye based on the author's history of insincerity does not mean I discount more credible researchers making similar arguments.