4 ms·
I really don't see how saying that the pandemic was a bad thing and that there is value in understanding its origin is "a dangerous level of sloppiness".
by Dig1t 4y ago
I really don't see how saying that the pandemic was a bad thing and that there is value in understanding its origin is "a dangerous level of sloppiness".
- nl 4y agoWell considering that's not what the OP said at all I guess it's ok you don't see that.
- swamp40 4y ago> third criticisms...show a dangerous level of sloppiness
- nl 4y agoand the second criticism?
- Dig1t 4y ago>These second and third criticisms are not direct against the evidence and logic presented, but show a dangerous level of sloppiness in the research OP _literally_ said that.
- nl 4y agoNeither the "second [or] third criticisms" were "saying that the pandemic was a bad thing and that there is value in understanding its origin". Just because "show a dangerous level of sloppiness in the research" was used in both sentences does not mean they are saying the same thing at all. The OP's second and third criticisms were: "the evidence for the wet market origin is trivialized." and "Thirdly, this paper emphasizes the strong impact of the COVID pandemic and asserts that understanding the origins of the virus would necessarily aid in preventing future pandemics. This does not clearly follow." While "saying that the pandemic was a bad thing and that there is value in understanding its origin" might approach a summary of the third criticism it doesn't address the second - more serious - criticism at all.
- _jal 4y agoThe accusation of sloppiness is based on two claims, and you're only responding to a bastardization of one of them.