5 ms·
Sorry but the post above is unscientific sophistry. Science is about weighing competing theories by examining the relative strength of evidence. The evidence is
by ttpphd 4y ago
Sorry but the post above is unscientific sophistry. Science is about weighing competing theories by examining the relative strength of evidence. The evidence is strongly in favor of zoonotic origin. What's posted here is an exercise in confirmation bias, not rigorous scientific thinking.
- throwawaymaths 4y agoGiven that I used to believe the zoonotic hypothesis the assertion of confirmation bias is a bit surprising to me.
- ttpphd 4y agoThe comment this is a reply to is what's known as rhetoric. The goal of rhetoric is to persuade the audience in the absence of logic or evidence. The comment is offering "testimony of conversion" which is not scientific.
- kaitaincps 4y agoNot really. The poster is saying they used to believe X but was persuaded subsequently that ~X was more likely. This seems to indicate at least a recent pattern of avoiding confirmation bias.
- ttpphd 4y agoIf you find "I changed my mind" to be the message, then you agree with me that it is rhetoric. It is testimony of conversion.
- secondcoming 4y agoAren’t you assuming that you’re being shown all the evidence?
- ttpphd 4y agoI'm very clearly and obviously doing the exact opposite
- kaitaincps 4y agoYou’d need to clarify what specifically is entailed by zoonotic origin (and what would count as not-zoonotic-origin) in order for your claim to be evaluated.