5 ms·

I find it suspicious that very few of these "researchers" seem to even have any expertise in virology. Furthermore, very few of them seem to even have a PhD in

by wh313 5y ago

I find it suspicious that very few of these "researchers" seem to even have any expertise in virology. Furthermore, very few of them seem to even have a PhD in their respective fields, nor any significant institutional affiliations. Two of them at least have research profiles, but their fields of expertise are in microbiology and nitrogen fixation, which have very little to do with virology or pathology. Their primary mode of publication also seems to be ArXiV and ResearchGate, which doesn't go through peer review, so there is no good way to verify their findings. Calling these people researchers would be equivalent to calling your average software developer a physicist. [1] https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=LLlFfdUAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=LLlFfdUAAAAJ... [2] https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=YWuJkRsAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=YWuJkRsAAAAJ...

rajin444 5y ago
> Furthermore, very few of them seem to even have a PhD in their respective fields, nor any significant institutional affiliations. I see this as a sign that they're more trustworthy. This is a poor situation to be in and not really something we can productively argue about. Trust should be the most important priority for any scientist (or any person really, but that's another issue).
- wh313 5y ago
  You seem to be making a really broad claim with a hidden assumption. When you claim that "Trust should be the most important priority for any scientist," whose trust should be prioritized?
  - rajin444 5y ago
    The truth should be prioritized. That's a very simple statement with a ton of complexities behind it and no good solution, I think.
    - wh313 5y ago
      Those complexities seem to be central to how you view graduate degree holders as less trustworthy. From what I understand, you're stating that these institutions are not trustworthy for some reason, which seems to be that they are trying to hide something that is true. Could you elaborate on that?
      - rajin444 5y ago
        More or less comes down to trust in institutions and whether or not you think trust should be earned not given. I've seen (personally and in the news) way too many occurrences of trust being abused by institutions. My default is the more political an issue is, the more likely I am to have 0 trust. I've got a much higher relative trust in underwater basketweaving PHD's than virologist PHD's commenting on the lab leak.
mkoubaa 5y ago
No PhD does not imply no expertise
derbOac 5y ago
This is tangential, but I've noticed a trend with this argument and other debates in biomedicine where there's a particular form of appeal to authority that takes the form of immunity by authority. That is, "anyone who is not credentialed in X cannot criticize the practices of those in X." This assumption, if accepted, creates a sort of a ethical-logical problem where a class of experts cannot be criticized by those outside of the field, leading to an inherent conflict of interest in issues where the nature of the problem are the practices of those in the field. If everyone in the field is doing problematic thing A, but the only people who can evaluate whether A is problematic, there's no way to change the field. It's basically like not only letting criminals be police and judges of their crimes, but forbidding anyone who isn't a criminal be police or judge. I'm not saying virologists are criminals, or even that the lab leak theory is correct, but it's the same ethical dilemma, which is what people are pointing to here. It's also not unique to COVID; it shows up in other issues, especially those surrounding medical practice. In society we have to prioritize the substance of argument or criticism above credentials; otherwise it leads to lack of transparency. There always has to be an outside overseer.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I think there are enough virologists in the world to trust that they don't all believe the same things or have the same bad/good practices. Some things are too complex for non-experts. It would be like a front-end web developer writing articles about how cryptography is flawed. Who are you going to believe if all the cryptographers disagree?
  - cowanon45645 5y ago
    It would be more like an amateur cryptographer finding a flaw with a published algorithm or certain companies security practices. Which can and does happen.
    - jjeaff 5y ago
      Which would not pick up any traction unless the cryptographers chimed in and agreed that it is a flaw.
cowanon45645 5y ago
Arguments should survive on their own merits though, not an appeal to authority. Sometimes a whole field can be flawed (or be afraid of having their funding cut since it comes from only a few sources), and an outsider may be needed to point it out.

by wh313 5y ago

rajin444 5y ago

> Furthermore, very few of them seem to even have a PhD in their respective fields, nor any significant institutional affiliations. I see this as a sign that they're more trustworthy. This is a poor situation to be in and not really something we can productively argue about. Trust should be the most important priority for any scientist (or any person really, but that's another issue).

wh313 5y ago
You seem to be making a really broad claim with a hidden assumption. When you claim that "Trust should be the most important priority for any scientist," whose trust should be prioritized?
- rajin444 5y ago
  The truth should be prioritized. That's a very simple statement with a ton of complexities behind it and no good solution, I think.
  - wh313 5y ago
    Those complexities seem to be central to how you view graduate degree holders as less trustworthy. From what I understand, you're stating that these institutions are not trustworthy for some reason, which seems to be that they are trying to hide something that is true. Could you elaborate on that?
    - rajin444 5y ago
      More or less comes down to trust in institutions and whether or not you think trust should be earned not given. I've seen (personally and in the news) way too many occurrences of trust being abused by institutions. My default is the more political an issue is, the more likely I am to have 0 trust. I've got a much higher relative trust in underwater basketweaving PHD's than virologist PHD's commenting on the lab leak.

mkoubaa 5y ago

No PhD does not imply no expertise

derbOac 5y ago

This is tangential, but I've noticed a trend with this argument and other debates in biomedicine where there's a particular form of appeal to authority that takes the form of immunity by authority. That is, "anyone who is not credentialed in X cannot criticize the practices of those in X." This assumption, if accepted, creates a sort of a ethical-logical problem where a class of experts cannot be criticized by those outside of the field, leading to an inherent conflict of interest in issues where the nature of the problem are the practices of those in the field. If everyone in the field is doing problematic thing A, but the only people who can evaluate whether A is problematic, there's no way to change the field. It's basically like not only letting criminals be police and judges of their crimes, but forbidding anyone who isn't a criminal be police or judge. I'm not saying virologists are criminals, or even that the lab leak theory is correct, but it's the same ethical dilemma, which is what people are pointing to here. It's also not unique to COVID; it shows up in other issues, especially those surrounding medical practice. In society we have to prioritize the substance of argument or criticism above credentials; otherwise it leads to lack of transparency. There always has to be an outside overseer.

jjeaff 5y ago
I think there are enough virologists in the world to trust that they don't all believe the same things or have the same bad/good practices. Some things are too complex for non-experts. It would be like a front-end web developer writing articles about how cryptography is flawed. Who are you going to believe if all the cryptographers disagree?
- cowanon45645 5y ago
  It would be more like an amateur cryptographer finding a flaw with a published algorithm or certain companies security practices. Which can and does happen.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    Which would not pick up any traction unless the cryptographers chimed in and agreed that it is a flaw.

cowanon45645 5y ago

Arguments should survive on their own merits though, not an appeal to authority. Sometimes a whole field can be flawed (or be afraid of having their funding cut since it comes from only a few sources), and an outsider may be needed to point it out.