3 ms·

I mostly agree, but how is this part of the piece relevant? Why should it matter what most of the public, American or whatever, believe? > Polls show that most

I mostly agree, but how is this part of the piece relevant? Why should it matter what most of the public, American or whatever, believe? > Polls show that most of the American public, regardless of their political leanings, believes the virus came from a laboratory, and, in 25 of 26 countries surveyed, more people think the virus came from a lab rather than nature. To me the "it's natural, okay!" scientists aren't behaving like scientists, more like the "The world is flat, ok!" theologians in the time of Galileo. The side that are also so certain that "The Chinese made it!" are also unscientific, in my opinion. We just don't know yet and there's not much investigating we can do.

troon-lover 4y ago
[dead]
908B64B197 4y ago
> We just don't know yet and there's not much investigating we can do. Because a certain country made sure to destroy evidences from the suspected lab?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 4y ago
It's relevant for two reasons. First, lay people presented with competing expert arguments are generally reliable. Not universally, of course, but often enough that it's probative. It is useful to get a "gut check" from someone who isn't close to an issue, the comparative increase in objectivity outweighs the comparative loss in expertise. Second, regardless of the abstract question of any particular hypothesis, the credibility of the scientific field in the eyes of the citizenry is important. Even if a scientist knew with certainty that the lab leak hypothesis were false, wasting credibility on that position without compelling evidence would be "damaging to science," in the sense that it decreases the influence of experts and, likely, their funding. TL;DR: It's important because, when choosing a hill to die on, you have to account for the strength of your evidence and whether people are inclined to believe you. The opinion polls are relevant to the latter question.
mc32 4y ago
While there is no inherent proof in actions, deleting data and denying access to labs and data does not inspire confidence when the WIV makes claims one way or another.
- baja_blast 4y ago
  And it's not just the Chinese scientists that are withholding data and research records. Western scientists that collaborated with the lab have also refused to share data/records. You'd think if their research was so vital and important sharing everything they have would be a priority. But not only do they refuse to share data, but the majority of outspoken virologists seem uninterested into looking into and studying all the data they have collected over the years. It seems virologists value their careers over uncovering the truth. And if this dangerous research is so important, why would the virology community be so disinterested? To me that's proof enough to ban any research that enhances novel animal viruses.
knaik94 4y ago
Public sentiment is what dictates how effective public policies will be. People will only agree to things, like getting a vaccine, if they hear it from someone they trust. Ignoring what the public believes, instead of educating and acknowledging concerns, is how you create the current strong anti-science sentiment across the globe. Vaccine hesitancy isn't isolated to USA, it's not even isolated to developed countries. If the government makes guidelines about sailing based on the framework that the world is flat, but everyone believes the world is round, people won't follow them. Most people don't see scientific evidence in a unattached objective way or even look for boths sides. Most people don't make value judgments based on what's scientific.

troon-lover 4y ago

[dead]

908B64B197 4y ago

> We just don't know yet and there's not much investigating we can do. Because a certain country made sure to destroy evidences from the suspected lab?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

torstenvl 4y ago

It's relevant for two reasons. First, lay people presented with competing expert arguments are generally reliable. Not universally, of course, but often enough that it's probative. It is useful to get a "gut check" from someone who isn't close to an issue, the comparative increase in objectivity outweighs the comparative loss in expertise. Second, regardless of the abstract question of any particular hypothesis, the credibility of the scientific field in the eyes of the citizenry is important. Even if a scientist knew with certainty that the lab leak hypothesis were false, wasting credibility on that position without compelling evidence would be "damaging to science," in the sense that it decreases the influence of experts and, likely, their funding. TL;DR: It's important because, when choosing a hill to die on, you have to account for the strength of your evidence and whether people are inclined to believe you. The opinion polls are relevant to the latter question.

mc32 4y ago

While there is no inherent proof in actions, deleting data and denying access to labs and data does not inspire confidence when the WIV makes claims one way or another.

baja_blast 4y ago
And it's not just the Chinese scientists that are withholding data and research records. Western scientists that collaborated with the lab have also refused to share data/records. You'd think if their research was so vital and important sharing everything they have would be a priority. But not only do they refuse to share data, but the majority of outspoken virologists seem uninterested into looking into and studying all the data they have collected over the years. It seems virologists value their careers over uncovering the truth. And if this dangerous research is so important, why would the virology community be so disinterested? To me that's proof enough to ban any research that enhances novel animal viruses.

knaik94 4y ago

Public sentiment is what dictates how effective public policies will be. People will only agree to things, like getting a vaccine, if they hear it from someone they trust. Ignoring what the public believes, instead of educating and acknowledging concerns, is how you create the current strong anti-science sentiment across the globe. Vaccine hesitancy isn't isolated to USA, it's not even isolated to developed countries. If the government makes guidelines about sailing based on the framework that the world is flat, but everyone believes the world is round, people won't follow them. Most people don't see scientific evidence in a unattached objective way or even look for boths sides. Most people don't make value judgments based on what's scientific.