4 ms·
No, the "lab leak" theory is not so taboo that any serious scientist would throw out everything they know about the scientific process. You're acting as if a c
by Zetice 3y ago
No, the "lab leak" theory is not so taboo that any serious scientist would throw out everything they know about the scientific process. You're acting as if a credible argument was made and shot down unjustly already, but no such thing has happened. You have no evidence to suggest that would actually have happened here, either. Just wild speculation about the worst possible behavior of one man in particular who does not in any way deserve your hate.
But even if that were the case, what this doesn't do is make any movement whatsoever as to the veracity of any "lab leak" theory. If you want to make that argument, do so. Nobody has, not credibly, even after these messages leaked. Where are the retractions, now that the cat is out of the bag? Nowhere, because they know such a thing would be indefensible.
All you have are implications, scuttlebutt, and postulation. Until someone actually presents the argument, all you can do is speculate, and that's not good enough for the scientific process to be relevant.
- somenameforme 3y agoYou're repeating yourself here, without adapting to what we've discussed. There was no grand scientific process. This is all just evaluating evidence and giving one's opinion on it - not some profound scientific process leading to an inescapable conclusion. The issue is finding a widget right beside a widget factory and trying to decide if it came from that factory, or if it came from a mystical laden African swallow that's evaded all attempts at discovery. Technically one cannot prove it one way or the other, and that's problematic when saying one thing sets the world (and likely, your livelihood) on fire, while saying the other is met with a yawn and vigorous approval from the two most influential nations in science, as well as the guy about to sign off on your dream scenario grant. The only argument they used to try to ignore having to deal with discussing a lab leak is that they claimed that COVID was inefficient at binding to a specific human receptor, with the implication that if it were lab created then you could have developed a more efficient binding mechanism. Nearly a trillion cases later, it seems fairly safe to say that the virus' binding mechanism was quite efficient after all, even prior to mutations.
- Zetice 3y agoI'm repeating myself because you're ignoring my point, as you lack a good argument to the contrary. These scientists have no standing to believe what they said in their Slack messages and in email, knew that, and only wrote what they could support; that COVID was not a lab leak. If they could support the lab leak theory, they would have written about it. That they didn't means until someone does write about it, what we have is a really good argument against it being a lab leak, and nothing else. Slack messages are not scientific research.
- somenameforme 3y agoNow you're being increasingly nonsensical. What, exactly, is this "really good argument"? And why would you publish something that would be career suicide?
- Zetice 3y agoYou're using quotes wrong, I never said what you claim. But the argument, as I've repeated over and over, is simple; what scientists publish is what matters. What they say in private Slack chats and emails is entirely irrelevant. I await these authors collective retractions, but lacking that, these Slack messages mean absolutely nothing, and Nate Silver knows that, as should you. You have a super low and entirely unjustified opinion of a whole lot of key institutions and people in this situation; people you know very little about, institutions you've never interacted with directly, and it shows. Publishing a paper explaining your belief that COVID may have been a lab leak is not career suicide, if you approach it logically, with humility, and explain your argument clearly. Publishing a well argued and highly sourced paper only to get cancelled is not how any of this works.
- somenameforme 3y agoSo now you're refusing to defend your own statements, and resorting to ad hominem? What, exactly, is this "really good argument"? And why would you publish something that would be career suicide? Try to actually answer instead of offering some passive aggressive blithering ad hominem nonsense.