3 ms·

If you're going to take what I say seriously, then I think you should focus first on the main point of the comment, and not a minor detail, but whatever. I can

If you're going to take what I say seriously, then I think you should focus first on the main point of the comment, and not a minor detail, but whatever. I can play ball. Assuming Derek Lowe the author of the article, I feel like my first comment covered your question He's playing with the definition of a politically-charged word, claiming that a GOF experiment isn't so unless it successfully creates a more virulent virus. I get that the definition of words isn't set in stone and there can be ambiguity involved, but this seems like a very dishonest take on what GOF research actually is. He even quoted a scientist whose conclusion is the exact opposite of his, that this is in fact GOF research, and failed to mention the fact! To add to my original comment, he used the phrase "real virologist" at least three times. This is charged language that implies a lot of people in these conversations don't know what they are talking about. This is not the behavior I expect out of scientists. Well, that's not true anymore. Nowadays, this is unfortunately the kind of behavior I do expect out of scientists that write articles for sites like science.org.

bena 4y ago
And tptacek felt that your use of quotes around "scientists" was also charged to imply Lowe wasn't entirely credible. But he wanted to make sure that's that what you were claiming because Lowe apparently has the academic credentials to lay claim to the appellation. You also want to accuse him of not engaging with your main point. But from your posts, I would say your main point is that some of those who claim to be scientists are more akin to politicians than scientists. And if that is not your intention, then I would say that is a failure on your part to convey what point you actually wanted to make. You want to knock his use of the term "real virologist", but he's using it to distinguish the people as people who work in virology and not random people on the internet arguing about the semantics of an apparently ill-defined term.
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  That's fair. I can see how the quotes would easily imply I'm suggesting these people aren't real scientists. I am however, suggesting though that in articles like these, they aren't doing science, and they could do much better. For instance, I think it would be more "scientific" to review various definitions of GOF research and suggest how this research might or might not fit each definition. This would at least have the appearance of being more objective and gathering data on existing usages of this word. And, to slightly correct your summary, I'm saying scientists are often conducting politics, or operating in the political arena (or moral arena), while, either explicitly or implicitly, taking advantage of the scientific credibility that society gives them by default. It's articles like these that land in leftwing fact-checking sites like Politifact that are then used as solid evidence that a particular claim is "misleading" or "mostly false."

bena 4y ago

And tptacek felt that your use of quotes around "scientists" was also charged to imply Lowe wasn't entirely credible. But he wanted to make sure that's that what you were claiming because Lowe apparently has the academic credentials to lay claim to the appellation. You also want to accuse him of not engaging with your main point. But from your posts, I would say your main point is that some of those who claim to be scientists are more akin to politicians than scientists. And if that is not your intention, then I would say that is a failure on your part to convey what point you actually wanted to make. You want to knock his use of the term "real virologist", but he's using it to distinguish the people as people who work in virology and not random people on the internet arguing about the semantics of an apparently ill-defined term.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago
That's fair. I can see how the quotes would easily imply I'm suggesting these people aren't real scientists. I am however, suggesting though that in articles like these, they aren't doing science, and they could do much better. For instance, I think it would be more "scientific" to review various definitions of GOF research and suggest how this research might or might not fit each definition. This would at least have the appearance of being more objective and gathering data on existing usages of this word. And, to slightly correct your summary, I'm saying scientists are often conducting politics, or operating in the political arena (or moral arena), while, either explicitly or implicitly, taking advantage of the scientific credibility that society gives them by default. It's articles like these that land in leftwing fact-checking sites like Politifact that are then used as solid evidence that a particular claim is "misleading" or "mostly false."