3 ms·

> The absence of evidence isn’t proof of absence. It is, however, evidence. The absence of evidence for black swans doesn’t mean there are no black swans, but i

> The absence of evidence isn’t proof of absence. It is, however, evidence. The absence of evidence for black swans doesn’t mean there are no black swans, but it does mean that a theory proposing most swans are black is probably wrong. Um, the author seems a little confused. Absence of evidence ... is evidence? Excuse me, but no. Absence of evidence means you have insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion which would be favored by the evidence. Riffing on the black swan example: if someone claims that black swans existed, and someone else is skeptical, the onus is on the pro-black-swan side to provide evidence. The onus is not on the black swan skeptic to believe them. However, there is a difference between the skeptic saying "I am unconvinced" and "therefore black swans (probably) do not exist." Failing to agree is not the same as strongly disagreeing.

mvdwoord 4y ago
In this case though, if there is a lab which explicitly researches this type of virus, and a pandemic starts right there, the onus is on the people claiming zoonotic origins. This bothered me at the time. Even if zoonotic routes are common, the chance of it happening right next to the lab from where research is done (lab leaks also occurred before) is small and suspect. If the government then blocks research into the origin... And discussing it is banned from many forums.. You no longer need a tin foil hat. This thing leaked from the lab, until proven otherwise imho.
kryogen1c 4y ago
> if someone claims that black swans existed, and someone else is skeptical, the onus is on the pro-black-swan side to provide evidence Your example is exactly backwards. Black swan events are meaningful because they don't have prior evidence to inform their existence. This is the opposite of the case for zoonotic spillover - there is a well established pattern that should be present and is not. Actually, your point is unintentionally correct - the black swan event here would be if zoonotic spillover DID occur, because there is substantial, expected, historically modeled, missing evidence. So, as you say, the onus is not on the lab-leak believer.
- enasterosophes 4y ago
  Well, I prefer to think that my point is intentionally correct, and I can't help it if the OP blog post I'm responding to has some epistemic issues which twist the whole discussion ;) Anyway, I think the onus is on whoever is making claims, not whoever the claimant is trying to convince. iiuc, there is additional evidence available that the virus came from a lab; but if we're focusing purely on the zoonotic spillover theory, isn't the current strongest position something like this: "claims that sars-cov-2 is purely zoonotic in origin are not consistent with the current evidence and modelling" ? Such wording avoids the tortured epistemology of "no evidence = evidence".

mvdwoord 4y ago

In this case though, if there is a lab which explicitly researches this type of virus, and a pandemic starts right there, the onus is on the people claiming zoonotic origins. This bothered me at the time. Even if zoonotic routes are common, the chance of it happening right next to the lab from where research is done (lab leaks also occurred before) is small and suspect. If the government then blocks research into the origin... And discussing it is banned from many forums.. You no longer need a tin foil hat. This thing leaked from the lab, until proven otherwise imho.

kryogen1c 4y ago

> if someone claims that black swans existed, and someone else is skeptical, the onus is on the pro-black-swan side to provide evidence Your example is exactly backwards. Black swan events are meaningful because they don't have prior evidence to inform their existence. This is the opposite of the case for zoonotic spillover - there is a well established pattern that should be present and is not. Actually, your point is unintentionally correct - the black swan event here would be if zoonotic spillover DID occur, because there is substantial, expected, historically modeled, missing evidence. So, as you say, the onus is not on the lab-leak believer.

enasterosophes 4y ago
Well, I prefer to think that my point is intentionally correct, and I can't help it if the OP blog post I'm responding to has some epistemic issues which twist the whole discussion ;) Anyway, I think the onus is on whoever is making claims, not whoever the claimant is trying to convince. iiuc, there is additional evidence available that the virus came from a lab; but if we're focusing purely on the zoonotic spillover theory, isn't the current strongest position something like this: "claims that sars-cov-2 is purely zoonotic in origin are not consistent with the current evidence and modelling" ? Such wording avoids the tortured epistemology of "no evidence = evidence".