3 ms·

Downplaying the lab leak is dangerous, because it is the difference between an accident and mass murder. I think the best evidence for a lab leak is common sens

Downplaying the lab leak is dangerous, because it is the difference between an accident and mass murder. I think the best evidence for a lab leak is common sense. https://dispatchito.substack.com/p/the-strongest-evidence-of-lab-genesis https://dispatchito.substack.com/p/the-strongest-evidence-of...

titzer 5y ago
> I think the best evidence for a lab leak is common sense. The best "evidence" for Newtonian physics (as opposed to General Relativity) is common sense. Common sense is not evidence.
- lil_dispaches 5y ago
  Evidence is not proof. There is lots of evidence. A hypothesis is not a theory. Being loose with language and concepts is dangerous.
  - titzer 5y ago
    Evidence is facts and information, not vague feelings, no matter how "common sense" it seems. You couldn't convict someone in a court of law with common sense, nor support a scientific theory with common sense. You need this external thing in the world that exists outside your mind. We have the word evidence to mean that external thing that exists outside your mind.
    - lil_dispaches 5y ago
      Is there somehow more evidence of natural origin than lab leak? By common sense, this is what I mean: the strain of coronavirus that caused covid-19 was very strong, much stronger than any previous strain, and we have seen many. Common sense says we have seen all the strains Nature could throw at us already, and none have been that deadly. So common sense leads to looking for evidence i new light, in new places. Also, evidence is not fact. Evidence is anything. Evidence was O.J. Simpson's hand didn't fit the glove. That was weak evidence, but that turned into "proof", via not-guilty verdict. Even proof is not fact (there are no facts lol). Evidence is anything you can find to solve the crime. After you collect evidence, you go through it at piece together the story. Read a book yo.
- puffoflogic 5y ago
  Einstein developed General Relativity despite all the available evidence being against it; he did not carefully study existing evidence and realize it supported General Relativity. I.e., it was developed purely by using "common sense", which is just a derogatory term for rationalism. Famously, when asked what his response would be if a certain piece of evidence turned out to be against relativity, Einstein replied that he'd feel sorry for who obtained the evidence, because Relativity was certainly right. And much later it transpired that the evidence matched the theory merely by coincidence; that the experiment was flawed. So Einstein nearly had to face that fight. Anyone following the position laid out in your comment would have been on the wrong side of that debate. This demonstrates perfectly that rationality can be superior to empiricism because it is not subject to the same flaws and contingencies as the gathering of empirical evidence.
  - titzer 5y ago
    > Einstein developed General Relativity despite all the available evidence being against it The amount of precession in Mercury's orbit couldn't be accounted for with known theories of the time. > he did not carefully study existing evidence and realize it supported General Relativity. Considering it took nearly 10 years to develop GR, I'm not sure he could have even considered whether evidence supported it or not; it was clear that there was a gap in understanding at the time, as experiments started to show it. Einstein suspected rightly[1] that unifying gravitation and acceleration with special relativity would give a complete theory of everything. [1] He was only half right; it doesn't explain quantum mechanics. He was a strong opponent of (some parts of QM) for a long time. > rationality can be superior to empiricism But it clearly isn't, as we haven't come up with a complete model that explains everything we can observe yet.
    - puffoflogic 5y ago
      > as we haven't come up with a complete model that explains everything we can observe yet. That objection is utter nonsense and an affront to reasonable discussion. Empiricism hasn't come up with a Grand Unified Theory of Everything yet either, so rationality's failure to do so doesn't constitute evidence either way regarding their relative value.
bell-cot 5y ago
"Common sense" does not apply - or is worse than useless - in areas where one has no actual deep experience. Which in this case would mean certain virologists, epidemiologists, etc. Simple test: Ask some old Maritime provinces fishermen about how the weather, sun, moon, coastal shape, currents, and dredged shipping channels interact to determine high tide levels along the coast. Then ask a bunch of folks whose experience doesn't include anything "ocean", "sea", or even "great lake" to give your their "common sense" on that subject.
- lil_dispaches 5y ago
  You have deep experience with viruses, via your biology. Science knows very little about virology, if you learned nothing but that from the pandemic. Your intuition is actually quite strong, as your whole body is a fractal complex of nature itself.
slibhb 5y ago
Even if it came from a lab it was an accident. Murder requires intent.
- lil_dispaches 5y ago
  The first illegal thing would be the act of making it in the lab, not the release, accidental or not. Manslaughter need not have intent or motive. The actions or consequences that precipitate from powerful leaders of state who bio-engineer weapons (against the law) do not need murder-intent either.
  - slibhb 5y ago
    I'm not sure that "making it in a lab" is illegal. Haven't many countries engaged in gain-of-function research? Is that illegal? Under what law? Also "lab leak hypothesis" in no way necessitates "making it in a lab" or gain-of-function. It could be that the virus was being researched in a lab and it leaked. And it's not only a question of intent. It's also about proximity. There are thousands and thousands of intermediate steps between carelessness leading to a lab leak and a global pandemic. My concern is that by calling it murder, you have no way to explain how driving a car isn't murder due to global deaths from pollution.
    - lil_dispaches 5y ago
      Okay, well accidentally killng people as a result of bioengineering is war crime, if not a crime Alameda County. Yes, "lab leak" is exactly the phrasing the media uses to diminish the importance, to preclude the asking of more serious questions in light of other evidence. The term is too simple, it does not imply the worse, possibly criminal, involvement. But then, why was it a lab, and not hospital leak? Seems odd place to start for a virus that some guy caught at the fish market.

titzer 5y ago

> I think the best evidence for a lab leak is common sense. The best "evidence" for Newtonian physics (as opposed to General Relativity) is common sense. Common sense is not evidence.

lil_dispaches 5y ago
Evidence is not proof. There is lots of evidence. A hypothesis is not a theory. Being loose with language and concepts is dangerous.
- titzer 5y ago
  Evidence is facts and information, not vague feelings, no matter how "common sense" it seems. You couldn't convict someone in a court of law with common sense, nor support a scientific theory with common sense. You need this external thing in the world that exists outside your mind. We have the word evidence to mean that external thing that exists outside your mind.
  - lil_dispaches 5y ago
    Is there somehow more evidence of natural origin than lab leak? By common sense, this is what I mean: the strain of coronavirus that caused covid-19 was very strong, much stronger than any previous strain, and we have seen many. Common sense says we have seen all the strains Nature could throw at us already, and none have been that deadly. So common sense leads to looking for evidence i new light, in new places. Also, evidence is not fact. Evidence is anything. Evidence was O.J. Simpson's hand didn't fit the glove. That was weak evidence, but that turned into "proof", via not-guilty verdict. Even proof is not fact (there are no facts lol). Evidence is anything you can find to solve the crime. After you collect evidence, you go through it at piece together the story. Read a book yo.
puffoflogic 5y ago
Einstein developed General Relativity despite all the available evidence being against it; he did not carefully study existing evidence and realize it supported General Relativity. I.e., it was developed purely by using "common sense", which is just a derogatory term for rationalism. Famously, when asked what his response would be if a certain piece of evidence turned out to be against relativity, Einstein replied that he'd feel sorry for who obtained the evidence, because Relativity was certainly right. And much later it transpired that the evidence matched the theory merely by coincidence; that the experiment was flawed. So Einstein nearly had to face that fight. Anyone following the position laid out in your comment would have been on the wrong side of that debate. This demonstrates perfectly that rationality can be superior to empiricism because it is not subject to the same flaws and contingencies as the gathering of empirical evidence.
- titzer 5y ago
  > Einstein developed General Relativity despite all the available evidence being against it The amount of precession in Mercury's orbit couldn't be accounted for with known theories of the time. > he did not carefully study existing evidence and realize it supported General Relativity. Considering it took nearly 10 years to develop GR, I'm not sure he could have even considered whether evidence supported it or not; it was clear that there was a gap in understanding at the time, as experiments started to show it. Einstein suspected rightly[1] that unifying gravitation and acceleration with special relativity would give a complete theory of everything. [1] He was only half right; it doesn't explain quantum mechanics. He was a strong opponent of (some parts of QM) for a long time. > rationality can be superior to empiricism But it clearly isn't, as we haven't come up with a complete model that explains everything we can observe yet.
  - puffoflogic 5y ago
    > as we haven't come up with a complete model that explains everything we can observe yet. That objection is utter nonsense and an affront to reasonable discussion. Empiricism hasn't come up with a Grand Unified Theory of Everything yet either, so rationality's failure to do so doesn't constitute evidence either way regarding their relative value.

bell-cot 5y ago

"Common sense" does not apply - or is worse than useless - in areas where one has no actual deep experience. Which in this case would mean certain virologists, epidemiologists, etc. Simple test: Ask some old Maritime provinces fishermen about how the weather, sun, moon, coastal shape, currents, and dredged shipping channels interact to determine high tide levels along the coast. Then ask a bunch of folks whose experience doesn't include anything "ocean", "sea", or even "great lake" to give your their "common sense" on that subject.

lil_dispaches 5y ago
You have deep experience with viruses, via your biology. Science knows very little about virology, if you learned nothing but that from the pandemic. Your intuition is actually quite strong, as your whole body is a fractal complex of nature itself.

slibhb 5y ago

Even if it came from a lab it was an accident. Murder requires intent.

lil_dispaches 5y ago
The first illegal thing would be the act of making it in the lab, not the release, accidental or not. Manslaughter need not have intent or motive. The actions or consequences that precipitate from powerful leaders of state who bio-engineer weapons (against the law) do not need murder-intent either.
- slibhb 5y ago
  I'm not sure that "making it in a lab" is illegal. Haven't many countries engaged in gain-of-function research? Is that illegal? Under what law? Also "lab leak hypothesis" in no way necessitates "making it in a lab" or gain-of-function. It could be that the virus was being researched in a lab and it leaked. And it's not only a question of intent. It's also about proximity. There are thousands and thousands of intermediate steps between carelessness leading to a lab leak and a global pandemic. My concern is that by calling it murder, you have no way to explain how driving a car isn't murder due to global deaths from pollution.
  - lil_dispaches 5y ago
    Okay, well accidentally killng people as a result of bioengineering is war crime, if not a crime Alameda County. Yes, "lab leak" is exactly the phrasing the media uses to diminish the importance, to preclude the asking of more serious questions in light of other evidence. The term is too simple, it does not imply the worse, possibly criminal, involvement. But then, why was it a lab, and not hospital leak? Seems odd place to start for a virus that some guy caught at the fish market.