4 ms·

"People whose whole job it is to study bat-based coronaviruses managed to cause a variant which escaped." "A virus whose whole job it is to mutate and infect m

"People whose whole job it is to study bat-based coronaviruses managed to cause a variant which escaped." "A virus whose whole job it is to mutate and infect mutated and infected people." I think most reasonably sensible people would consider these to be fairly equal in terms of unlikeliness or simplicity. So yes, Occam's razor does not apply, but not because of your particular bias against one of the options. > that is not supported by any observation It's supported by at least 3 observations, which is that a leading virology lab known to manipulate bat-based coronaviruses was less than 30mins drive from the potential wet market source, and that China has a history of covering up controversial facts, and that China did at least their usual amount of hindrance for investigators. I have absolutely no preference for one theory over the other. Or neither. I have no special evidence, and speculation at this point seems pretty pointless. And unless you do, telling people they're stupid because of their preference is only going to cement their belief in a coverup. So maybe we should quit screaming at people and just say "you do you". (Just to clarify: Feel free to work against sinophobia... that's perfectly valid. But again, dismissing critical thought on a topic out of hand does nothing but hand the Sinophobes an own-goal)

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
>> I have absolutely no preference for one theory over the other. Or neither. I have no special evidence, and speculation at this point seems pretty pointless. That's a false objectivity. We have very strong prior knowledge that diseases arise naturally, without the need for human intervention. To assume there was human intervention requires accordingly strong evidence, at least as strong as the stength of the prior knowledge. This is where Occam's razor comes in. We do not need to imagine lab leaks, when a natural origin suffices to explain the pandemic. Also, the "3 observations" you list are observations used to justify the hypothesis that a lab like happened, not observations that caused the hypothesis to be proposed in the first place. First people assumed there was a lab leak, then they went out to find reasons to support a lab leak. That's putting the cart before the horses. Solid reasoning needs observations to precede a hypothesis, not the other way around.
- undecisive 5y ago
  This is all utter horse manure. > We have very strong prior knowledge that diseases arise naturally Correct. We also have very strong prior knowledge that existing diseases can be manipulated and produced by means of unnatural selection. We also have strong prior knowledge that this particular lab have done a fair amount of that. With coronaviruses. With bats. 5 minutes with wikipedia would tell you that. It's a bit like saying "We have very strong prior knowledge that coins can land heads-up, so this coin could never be showing tails". > not observations that caused the hypothesis to be proposed in the first place Please cite your sources. Otherwise, you're just showing bias against the people proposing the theory in the first place. And let's be fair, conspiracy theorists are more often wrong than right, so I understand your distrust of them. But also let's be fair: - if it was true that Covid-19 originated in that lab, I don't think anyone is saying "oh no, China would never cover something like this up" - the geographical coincidence is a compelling coincidence. > Solid reasoning needs observations to precede a hypothesis, not the other way around. This is dodgy ground, and shows a serious misunderstanding of the applicability - and even the process - of the scientific method. Observations like "viruses rarely jump between species like this" and "virology labs can produce viruses" are valid outcomes of pre-hypothesis research. Tests such as "If the WHO try to investigate, the Chinese government will attempt to restrict investigators" might be problematic (write it up in your analysis!), but are nonetheless valid. There are very few easily measured predictions in this. If you want to go scientific method on this, by all means share your hypotheses and tests. "Lots of clever people have said this" or "I trust this source more than that source" is not a valid test when the waters are so muddied. So no, this is not false objectivity at all. This is your opinion masquerading as fact. In all the data gathering I've done, I've seen nothing to compel me to take one opinion over another. If you want to actually try, using real arguments, please feel free.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
    >> This is all utter horse manure. That's great to know. Thank you for your kind and dignified contribution.
    - 5y ago

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago

>> I have absolutely no preference for one theory over the other. Or neither. I have no special evidence, and speculation at this point seems pretty pointless. That's a false objectivity. We have very strong prior knowledge that diseases arise naturally, without the need for human intervention. To assume there was human intervention requires accordingly strong evidence, at least as strong as the stength of the prior knowledge. This is where Occam's razor comes in. We do not need to imagine lab leaks, when a natural origin suffices to explain the pandemic. Also, the "3 observations" you list are observations used to justify the hypothesis that a lab like happened, not observations that caused the hypothesis to be proposed in the first place. First people assumed there was a lab leak, then they went out to find reasons to support a lab leak. That's putting the cart before the horses. Solid reasoning needs observations to precede a hypothesis, not the other way around.

undecisive 5y ago
This is all utter horse manure. > We have very strong prior knowledge that diseases arise naturally Correct. We also have very strong prior knowledge that existing diseases can be manipulated and produced by means of unnatural selection. We also have strong prior knowledge that this particular lab have done a fair amount of that. With coronaviruses. With bats. 5 minutes with wikipedia would tell you that. It's a bit like saying "We have very strong prior knowledge that coins can land heads-up, so this coin could never be showing tails". > not observations that caused the hypothesis to be proposed in the first place Please cite your sources. Otherwise, you're just showing bias against the people proposing the theory in the first place. And let's be fair, conspiracy theorists are more often wrong than right, so I understand your distrust of them. But also let's be fair: - if it was true that Covid-19 originated in that lab, I don't think anyone is saying "oh no, China would never cover something like this up" - the geographical coincidence is a compelling coincidence. > Solid reasoning needs observations to precede a hypothesis, not the other way around. This is dodgy ground, and shows a serious misunderstanding of the applicability - and even the process - of the scientific method. Observations like "viruses rarely jump between species like this" and "virology labs can produce viruses" are valid outcomes of pre-hypothesis research. Tests such as "If the WHO try to investigate, the Chinese government will attempt to restrict investigators" might be problematic (write it up in your analysis!), but are nonetheless valid. There are very few easily measured predictions in this. If you want to go scientific method on this, by all means share your hypotheses and tests. "Lots of clever people have said this" or "I trust this source more than that source" is not a valid test when the waters are so muddied. So no, this is not false objectivity at all. This is your opinion masquerading as fact. In all the data gathering I've done, I've seen nothing to compel me to take one opinion over another. If you want to actually try, using real arguments, please feel free.
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  >> This is all utter horse manure. That's great to know. Thank you for your kind and dignified contribution.
  - 5y ago