4 ms·

I literally said speculate all you want. Just don't expect your speculation to be magically accepted as truth when that's not what the evidence supports. Have

by Klinky 3y ago

I literally said speculate all you want. Just don't expect your speculation to be magically accepted as truth when that's not what the evidence supports. Have you spoken about your concerns with your congresspersons & asked them to support bans on risky gain-of-function research? That'd be something tangible you could do than just speculating on top of speculation.

kcplate 3y ago
Why deflect here? What is your motivation to discount and argue against using circumstantial evidence to draw a conclusion possibility when neither side of the debate has the definitive evidence that you seek? Does it somehow bother your politics in some way? Are you just being a contrarian for contrary sake? Your desire for evidential purity in a situation where you are most likely not involved is really strange. I am just interested in why that is. What is motivating you here? Please articulate it.
- Klinky 3y ago
  > discount and argue against using circumstantial evidence Didn't discount or argue against using circumstantial evidence, nor did I argue against speculating. I am stating the evidence only supports the possibility, it does not prove it happened. Please stop making up false arguments. >neither side of the debate has the definitive evidence Agreed.
  - kcplate 3y ago
    The original comment you replied made no claim that those two links were definitive proof of a lab leak, only that they were known to be factual. They may be circumstantial but circumstantial evidence can still be provably true. You made the leap to assume that original commenter meant it as definitive proof of a lab leak in your comment. I read the comment to mean thatit was offered as a strong circumstantial evidence because it was indisputably true due to the public records that support it. Every study I see leaning towards a lab leak origin conclusion tend to be pretty specific to use words like “likely” or “probable” because of the lack of definitive evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be powerful, especially when the other side does not have a set of similar or better circumstantial evidence in their favor.
    - Klinky 3y ago
      >made no claim that those two links were definitive proof They implied their confidence through the rhetorical use of "What are the chances?". That was not a genuine question. > circumstantial evidence can still be provably true Circumstantial evidence MUST be true to be usable. The circumstantial evidence provided in the articles was: - There was a denied research grant that was going to look into modifying the furin site of coronaviruses. It was denied though, and as far as we know, never done. - The furin site was complex, but could've evolved naturally. - Some scientists think it could have been of lab origin. - Some scientists think it could have been zoonotic origin. All of this is true, but it doesn't mean a lab leak is "probable" or "more than likely". >Every study I see leaning towards a lab leak origin So even the studies that lean towards the theory qualify that the evidence is not definitive. We're back where we started. Definitive or Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: No Probable or More Likely Than Not: No A strong possibility: Yes There is not a consensus on the origin of COVID-19 at this time.
votepaunchy 3y ago
> Have you spoken about your concerns with your congresspersons & asked them to support bans on risky gain-of-function research? That'd be something tangible you could do than just speculating on top of speculation. US law already bans US funding of gain-of-function research.
- Klinky 3y ago
  Is this true? I saw NIH lifted a moratorium in 2017. There's currently an unpassed bill to stop Fed funding of gain-of-function research. It does not seem banned either completely or from federal funding.

by Klinky 3y ago

kcplate 3y ago

Why deflect here? What is your motivation to discount and argue against using circumstantial evidence to draw a conclusion possibility when neither side of the debate has the definitive evidence that you seek? Does it somehow bother your politics in some way? Are you just being a contrarian for contrary sake? Your desire for evidential purity in a situation where you are most likely not involved is really strange. I am just interested in why that is. What is motivating you here? Please articulate it.

Klinky 3y ago
> discount and argue against using circumstantial evidence Didn't discount or argue against using circumstantial evidence, nor did I argue against speculating. I am stating the evidence only supports the possibility, it does not prove it happened. Please stop making up false arguments. >neither side of the debate has the definitive evidence Agreed.
- kcplate 3y ago
  The original comment you replied made no claim that those two links were definitive proof of a lab leak, only that they were known to be factual. They may be circumstantial but circumstantial evidence can still be provably true. You made the leap to assume that original commenter meant it as definitive proof of a lab leak in your comment. I read the comment to mean thatit was offered as a strong circumstantial evidence because it was indisputably true due to the public records that support it. Every study I see leaning towards a lab leak origin conclusion tend to be pretty specific to use words like “likely” or “probable” because of the lack of definitive evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be powerful, especially when the other side does not have a set of similar or better circumstantial evidence in their favor.
  - Klinky 3y ago
    >made no claim that those two links were definitive proof They implied their confidence through the rhetorical use of "What are the chances?". That was not a genuine question. > circumstantial evidence can still be provably true Circumstantial evidence MUST be true to be usable. The circumstantial evidence provided in the articles was: - There was a denied research grant that was going to look into modifying the furin site of coronaviruses. It was denied though, and as far as we know, never done. - The furin site was complex, but could've evolved naturally. - Some scientists think it could have been of lab origin. - Some scientists think it could have been zoonotic origin. All of this is true, but it doesn't mean a lab leak is "probable" or "more than likely". >Every study I see leaning towards a lab leak origin So even the studies that lean towards the theory qualify that the evidence is not definitive. We're back where we started. Definitive or Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: No Probable or More Likely Than Not: No A strong possibility: Yes There is not a consensus on the origin of COVID-19 at this time.

votepaunchy 3y ago

> Have you spoken about your concerns with your congresspersons & asked them to support bans on risky gain-of-function research? That'd be something tangible you could do than just speculating on top of speculation. US law already bans US funding of gain-of-function research.

Klinky 3y ago
Is this true? I saw NIH lifted a moratorium in 2017. There's currently an unpassed bill to stop Fed funding of gain-of-function research. It does not seem banned either completely or from federal funding.