5 ms·

There is what you believe, and then there is what you prove. Science isn’t interested in the former, and Nate Silver understands that. It’s got nothing whatso

by Zetice 3y ago

There is what you believe, and then there is what you prove. Science isn’t interested in the former, and Nate Silver understands that. It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with politics, and scientists are free to think whatever they like; however, what they say formally is subject to the process of peer review. We can speculate all day about why these folks committed to the position they did, but the published content is all that matters.

somenameforme 3y ago
You can read the paper in question here [1]. In cases like this where there's little to nothing in the way of experimentation or generalizations, all they're doing is assessing the evidence and offering their opinion on whatever they believe is most likely. The catch being in this case, what they said they believe is probably not what they did. [1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
- Zetice 3y ago
  I think it is representative of where they landed, but not of where they were the entire process. Folks often argue one thing but come to believe another over time, and what we see is only the end product of that journey (unless someone FOIAs our conversations). Are they retracting the paper? Are they publishing anything else to qualify their opinion or change their stance, formally? If not why not?
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    There's a really interesting article with a lot more relevant information here. [1] They (Andersen and Rambaut) describe exactly where they "landed", and how [1]: --- Andersen: “Natural selection and accidental release are both plausible scenarios explaining the data – and a priori should be equally weighed as possible explanations. The presence of a furin [cleavage site] a posteriori” — the furin cleavage site was the characteristic of the virus that the scientists thought was indicative of engineering or other lab origin — “moves me slightly more towards accidental release, but it’s well above my paygrade to call the shots on a final conclusion.” Rambaut: "Given the shit show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say that given there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we cannot possible distinguish between natural evolution and escape so we are content to with ascribing it to natural processes." Andersen: "Yup, I totally agree that’s a very reasonable conclusion. Although I hate when politics is injected into science – but it’s impossible not to, especially given the circumstance. We should be sensitive to that." --- Outside of this, another major issue (which they lied to congress about - these are some really stand up guys...) is that they had a grant for millions of dollars awaiting final approval from Fauci. Fauci is a major advocate for gain of function research, and Andersen was also worried that him digging further into lab leak could leave him being pinned as hostile to gain of function research. Defacto censoring science is how we destroy science. [1] - https://theintercept.com/2023/07/21/covid-origin-nih-lab-leak/ https://theintercept.com/2023/07/21/covid-origin-nih-lab-lea...
    - Zetice 3y ago
      Sorry but if these people aren’t willing to say this in a way that invites peer scrutiny, then I don’t give a shit what they mumble back and forth to one another, and you shouldn’t either. We saw this with election fraud claims from the Trump admin and his supporters; wild fraud claims in the media, but not a single legitimate peep in an actual courtroom. Same thing here, wild claims in informal settings but refusal to hold those claims up to scrutiny, knowing they wouldn’t survive.
      - somenameforme 3y ago
        They did not omit it for fear of peer scrutiny, they omitted it because we live in a society where even experts at the top of their field can face brutal repercussions for having the wrong opinion. The lead author felt the lab leak was the most probable explanation, but said exactly the opposite because of politics. And this is something you very much should care about, because it's directly impacting and harming the quality of science that we produce, to say nothing of completely distorting social discussion. It's like science in the e.g. Mideast where any discovery or statement that may, in any possible way, run into conflict with religious values would largely be self censored away. It's this exact problem that caused the Mideast to go from the academic capital of the world, to a wasteland of such.
        Zetice 3y ago
        > They did not omit it for fear of peer scrutiny, they omitted it because we live in a society where even experts at the top of their field can face brutal repercussions for having the wrong opinion. The lead author felt the lab leak was the most probable explanation, but said exactly the opposite because of politics. So he claims. I don't believe him, and I don't agree with you. I don't believe him because he knows how the scientific process works; that peer review is the only way to credibly challenge an idea. The only real reason he could possibly have for writing the precise opposite of what he believes is if he knows what he believes won't hold up to scrutiny. There were many, many ways he could have handled this situation that didn't involve writing a paper that argues exactly the opposite of his supposed beliefs, but that's the route he chose, because that's the route the data led. I don't agree with you because you're clearly ignorant on all of the masking research that's come out lately that "contradicts" earlier held opinion re: effectiveness of the general population using masks to effectively slow down the spread of a respiratory virus. If it were so "dangerous" to speak contrary to popular opinion, why is it so trivially easy for the folks conducting the masking research to do so? The authors of this paper had no evidence to credibly support their beliefs, so they wrote what they could support. That matters a whole hell of a lot more than random emails of Slack messages ever will. The system worked, let's hope it keeps working.

by Zetice 3y ago

somenameforme 3y ago

You can read the paper in question here [1]. In cases like this where there's little to nothing in the way of experimentation or generalizations, all they're doing is assessing the evidence and offering their opinion on whatever they believe is most likely. The catch being in this case, what they said they believe is probably not what they did. [1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

Zetice 3y ago
I think it is representative of where they landed, but not of where they were the entire process. Folks often argue one thing but come to believe another over time, and what we see is only the end product of that journey (unless someone FOIAs our conversations). Are they retracting the paper? Are they publishing anything else to qualify their opinion or change their stance, formally? If not why not?
- somenameforme 3y ago
  There's a really interesting article with a lot more relevant information here. [1] They (Andersen and Rambaut) describe exactly where they "landed", and how [1]: --- Andersen: “Natural selection and accidental release are both plausible scenarios explaining the data – and a priori should be equally weighed as possible explanations. The presence of a furin [cleavage site] a posteriori” — the furin cleavage site was the characteristic of the virus that the scientists thought was indicative of engineering or other lab origin — “moves me slightly more towards accidental release, but it’s well above my paygrade to call the shots on a final conclusion.” Rambaut: "Given the shit show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say that given there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we cannot possible distinguish between natural evolution and escape so we are content to with ascribing it to natural processes." Andersen: "Yup, I totally agree that’s a very reasonable conclusion. Although I hate when politics is injected into science – but it’s impossible not to, especially given the circumstance. We should be sensitive to that." --- Outside of this, another major issue (which they lied to congress about - these are some really stand up guys...) is that they had a grant for millions of dollars awaiting final approval from Fauci. Fauci is a major advocate for gain of function research, and Andersen was also worried that him digging further into lab leak could leave him being pinned as hostile to gain of function research. Defacto censoring science is how we destroy science. [1] - https://theintercept.com/2023/07/21/covid-origin-nih-lab-leak/ https://theintercept.com/2023/07/21/covid-origin-nih-lab-lea...
  - Zetice 3y ago
    Sorry but if these people aren’t willing to say this in a way that invites peer scrutiny, then I don’t give a shit what they mumble back and forth to one another, and you shouldn’t either. We saw this with election fraud claims from the Trump admin and his supporters; wild fraud claims in the media, but not a single legitimate peep in an actual courtroom. Same thing here, wild claims in informal settings but refusal to hold those claims up to scrutiny, knowing they wouldn’t survive.
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      They did not omit it for fear of peer scrutiny, they omitted it because we live in a society where even experts at the top of their field can face brutal repercussions for having the wrong opinion. The lead author felt the lab leak was the most probable explanation, but said exactly the opposite because of politics. And this is something you very much should care about, because it's directly impacting and harming the quality of science that we produce, to say nothing of completely distorting social discussion. It's like science in the e.g. Mideast where any discovery or statement that may, in any possible way, run into conflict with religious values would largely be self censored away. It's this exact problem that caused the Mideast to go from the academic capital of the world, to a wasteland of such.
      - Zetice 3y ago
        > They did not omit it for fear of peer scrutiny, they omitted it because we live in a society where even experts at the top of their field can face brutal repercussions for having the wrong opinion. The lead author felt the lab leak was the most probable explanation, but said exactly the opposite because of politics. So he claims. I don't believe him, and I don't agree with you. I don't believe him because he knows how the scientific process works; that peer review is the only way to credibly challenge an idea. The only real reason he could possibly have for writing the precise opposite of what he believes is if he knows what he believes won't hold up to scrutiny. There were many, many ways he could have handled this situation that didn't involve writing a paper that argues exactly the opposite of his supposed beliefs, but that's the route he chose, because that's the route the data led. I don't agree with you because you're clearly ignorant on all of the masking research that's come out lately that "contradicts" earlier held opinion re: effectiveness of the general population using masks to effectively slow down the spread of a respiratory virus. If it were so "dangerous" to speak contrary to popular opinion, why is it so trivially easy for the folks conducting the masking research to do so? The authors of this paper had no evidence to credibly support their beliefs, so they wrote what they could support. That matters a whole hell of a lot more than random emails of Slack messages ever will. The system worked, let's hope it keeps working.