8 ms·

Sorry this is an unscientific conclusion. The lab leak is more plausible based on the animals required and known and proposed research at that facility. It's si

Sorry this is an unscientific conclusion. The lab leak is more plausible based on the animals required and known and proposed research at that facility. It's simply another polemic. Without information / data from the lab you cannot claim one is more probable.

WaxProlix 4y ago
> The lab leak is more plausible > you cannot claim one is more probable Am I missing something here?
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  Nope - HN is one of the worst 'smart' places on the internet for Covid discussion. Every single thread immediately devolves into completely ascientific conspiracy ranting.
  - reglkj45y 4y ago
  - ravitation 4y ago
    This is also not limited to just COVID discussion either. Most things that aren't somehow related to day-to-day software development devolve into unsubstantiated, or ill-informed, "ranting." It's a source of constant disappointment.
    - dwringer 4y ago
      > Most things that aren't somehow related to day-to-day software development And especially the things that are. That's what makes HN special.
      - ravitation 4y ago
        These are at least often informed by (overly specific) personal anecdotes.
    - ctoth 4y ago
      Personally if I were constantly disappointed by a website I would take the extraordinary step of simply... not using that website anymore, rather than coming on that website and telling everybody how ill-informed they were. I always have been a bit odd though.
      - ravitation 4y ago
        It's far from the biggest source of disappointment I'm subjected to on a daily basis. I also frequently choose not to engage with ill-informed comment threads; I'm regretting my lapse in judgement today.
  - mgamache 4y ago
    Labeling something as 'conspiracy ranting' is convenient low-brow tactic to dismiss a supported point of view without consideration. This is also a pattern on HN.
    - mikeyouse 4y ago
      Ah yes, 'supported points of view' like half the comments in this thread talking about lab employees selling infected animals in the market? Or how we're "pretending" that Covid is a leading cause of death during a pandemic? Or how somehow Pfizer is implicated in the origin of Covid?
      - mgamache 4y ago
        Another lazy rhetorical tactic, Association Fallacy. Not everyone is making all those claims, in fact I only made one: The lab leak is still a better explanation for the origin of COVID. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
        ModernMech 4y ago
        There’s a story on the front page currently about a lazy rhetorical tactic, wherein one calls out fallacies as if they were spells. You might find that interesting.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      What has been asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
  - lawn 4y ago
    It's the same for a lot of other topics, including ones HN should be more knowledgeable about.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    OTOH, complete submission to scientific sources without checking the details seems exactly opposite of how science should work. HN is probably overly scientific in this sense.
    - mikeyouse 4y ago
      Nobody is "checking the details" in this thread - they're just wildly speculating based on their feelings and asserting that the absence of evidence about the virus originating at the WIV is very clearly suspicious...
      - systemvoltage 4y ago
        Speaking generally, every single time a new study is discussed on HN, the first comment talks about how it doesn't do what it is supposed to. For e.g., a topic about "X cures cancer" has a comment that's at the very top that claims "No, X doesn't cure cancer, except in these narrow cases" and then sources the details in the paper. That seems to me the right thing to do. HN does that very well.
        mikeyouse 4y ago
        If you read closer, you'll notice that it's not at all what is happening here. Maybe 1/10th of the comments are about the actual paper? Fewer? It's just mindless evidence-free conspiracy mongering including fun little subthreads about how you can't rule out that the US actually created the pandemic to punish China; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32252553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32252553
        systemvoltage 4y ago
        We are talking past each other. I’m speaking more generally since you’re talking about this entire community. But you have just this thread to point for an example.
  - neuronexmachina 4y ago
    IMHO, you can tell from the comments who actually read the linked paper, and who read only supposed debunkings of the paper on Substack/etc by Covid conspiracy theorists.
- mgamache 4y ago
  They cite no data in the paper to support their claims. Outside of the paper there is additional data / reasons to suspect the lab as the source.

WaxProlix 4y ago

> The lab leak is more plausible > you cannot claim one is more probable Am I missing something here?

mikeyouse 4y ago
Nope - HN is one of the worst 'smart' places on the internet for Covid discussion. Every single thread immediately devolves into completely ascientific conspiracy ranting.
- reglkj45y 4y ago
- ravitation 4y ago
  This is also not limited to just COVID discussion either. Most things that aren't somehow related to day-to-day software development devolve into unsubstantiated, or ill-informed, "ranting." It's a source of constant disappointment.
  - dwringer 4y ago
    > Most things that aren't somehow related to day-to-day software development And especially the things that are. That's what makes HN special.
    - ravitation 4y ago
      These are at least often informed by (overly specific) personal anecdotes.
  - ctoth 4y ago
    Personally if I were constantly disappointed by a website I would take the extraordinary step of simply... not using that website anymore, rather than coming on that website and telling everybody how ill-informed they were. I always have been a bit odd though.
    - ravitation 4y ago
      It's far from the biggest source of disappointment I'm subjected to on a daily basis. I also frequently choose not to engage with ill-informed comment threads; I'm regretting my lapse in judgement today.
- mgamache 4y ago
  Labeling something as 'conspiracy ranting' is convenient low-brow tactic to dismiss a supported point of view without consideration. This is also a pattern on HN.
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    Ah yes, 'supported points of view' like half the comments in this thread talking about lab employees selling infected animals in the market? Or how we're "pretending" that Covid is a leading cause of death during a pandemic? Or how somehow Pfizer is implicated in the origin of Covid?
    - mgamache 4y ago
      Another lazy rhetorical tactic, Association Fallacy. Not everyone is making all those claims, in fact I only made one: The lab leak is still a better explanation for the origin of COVID. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
      - ModernMech 4y ago
        There’s a story on the front page currently about a lazy rhetorical tactic, wherein one calls out fallacies as if they were spells. You might find that interesting.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    What has been asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
- lawn 4y ago
  It's the same for a lot of other topics, including ones HN should be more knowledgeable about.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  OTOH, complete submission to scientific sources without checking the details seems exactly opposite of how science should work. HN is probably overly scientific in this sense.
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    Nobody is "checking the details" in this thread - they're just wildly speculating based on their feelings and asserting that the absence of evidence about the virus originating at the WIV is very clearly suspicious...
    - systemvoltage 4y ago
      Speaking generally, every single time a new study is discussed on HN, the first comment talks about how it doesn't do what it is supposed to. For e.g., a topic about "X cures cancer" has a comment that's at the very top that claims "No, X doesn't cure cancer, except in these narrow cases" and then sources the details in the paper. That seems to me the right thing to do. HN does that very well.
      - mikeyouse 4y ago
        If you read closer, you'll notice that it's not at all what is happening here. Maybe 1/10th of the comments are about the actual paper? Fewer? It's just mindless evidence-free conspiracy mongering including fun little subthreads about how you can't rule out that the US actually created the pandemic to punish China; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32252553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32252553
        systemvoltage 4y ago
        We are talking past each other. I’m speaking more generally since you’re talking about this entire community. But you have just this thread to point for an example.
- neuronexmachina 4y ago
  IMHO, you can tell from the comments who actually read the linked paper, and who read only supposed debunkings of the paper on Substack/etc by Covid conspiracy theorists.
mgamache 4y ago
They cite no data in the paper to support their claims. Outside of the paper there is additional data / reasons to suspect the lab as the source.