7 ms·
I've seen several papers with the opposite conclusion. Why do we only see the lab leak hypothesis front paged on HN?
by guelo 4y ago
I've seen several papers with the opposite conclusion. Why do we only see the lab leak hypothesis front paged on HN?
- astrange 4y agoCynical engineers are required to believe in it because it's 1. "the opposite of the current thing" 2. contains more rationality than the other leading hypothesis (i.e. more of what happened was planned, rather than an accident) 3. and lets them blame a person rather than a bat. An ironically fitting end for them would be that it is true, they get all similar research banned, and then the next virus is zoonotic and nobody is prepared for it due to not doing any research. edit: added "ironically"
- thunky 4y agoThat's pretty dark. A nicer thing to wish for is that it leads to better safety an accountability protocols.
- tgv 4y agoNone of the gain-of-function research has been any help at all in the CoVID pandemic, nor in the SARS outbreaks. I also fail to see how it could have helped. What particularly helpful insight or technique came from that particular lab in Wuhan?
- z7 4y agoUnfalsifiable speculation about the psychological motives of people proposing a hypothesis, a retribution fantasy on the "fitting end" for such cynical deviants, plus an inversion of what side of the investigation was subjected to censorship? Nice combo.
- Shish2k 4y agoNow that you mention it, I wonder if there’s any correlation between the startup-mindset (believing that success comes from hard work more than good luck), and the conspiracy-mindset (believing that disaster comes from hard work more than bad luck)...
- Fomite 4y agoHonestly, I think part of it is a wider failure of people not engaging in stochastic thinking.
- cjensen 4y ago"Dog bites man" is not a story because it's just a thing that happens. "Man bites dog" is a story because it is surprising and not normal.
- Fomite 4y agoTo my mind, there are a few reasons: 1) It makes the pandemic deterministic (bad lab security means an outbreak) instead of stochastic (wildlife spillover). That is, to be frank, even as an epidemiologist who is very skeptical of the lab leak hypothesis, a comforting thought. 2) It's a popular topic in the Substack/Medium set, because it moves the pandemic back into their wheelhouse of expertise, international relations, policy, etc. It becomes a human problem with human solutions. 3) It appeals to the contrarian mindset. 4) All of the lab leak papers at least attempt to show definitive proof. In contrast, actually finding the source of spillover events is the work of decades (and isn't always or even often successful). "Science is slow and uncertain" is a less compelling narrative.
- layer8 4y ago> It makes the pandemic deterministic (bad lab security means an outbreak) instead of stochastic "Bad lab security means an outbreak" is also stochastic though?
- Fomite 4y agoNot in the same way - it is admittedly still stochastic, but the product of conscious though, decisions, etc. that have very obvious bad actors and process improvements. So semi-deterministic might be a fairer way to put it. But at the very least, "Stochastic with a much, much smaller threat surface".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lamontcg 4y agoZoonotic spillover is likely increasing in China due to climate change, more human-animal contact and animal farming, it probably has a large "determinstic" background. Of course if you go down that rabbithole then you might wind up concluding that the vegans have been right all along, which certain groups might find an unpalatable result.
- misja111 4y agoI have trouble understanding your point. Do you mean that HN front page should only show articles which are in line with the most common papers?