3 ms·

You'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

You'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 ago
I'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 ago
  Now 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 ago
    You'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 ago
      So 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.
      - Zetice 3y ago
        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. And you ought to learn what an ad hominem is. Worst application of the term I've seen on HN in a while.
        somenameforme 3y ago
        You're again failing to even hint at what you think this "really good argument" is, and you're also not formulating an argument yourself. Your argument relies on ignoring all evidence and simply assuming your provably false assumption that the world of academia is this amazing place free of bias where merit and objectivity are truly all that matter. As for retractions. Things move, at best, slowly even when overt. The Lancet's also the journal that published the MMR-Autism paper, back in 1998. It wasn't fully retracted until 2010 (there was a partial retraction in 2004). And even then it wasn't due to this beautiful system you've built up in your mind, but rather a an investigation from one of Murdoch's newspapers showing the paper's author was a conman.

Zetice 3y ago

I'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 ago
Now 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 ago
  You'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 ago
    So 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.
    - Zetice 3y ago
      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. And you ought to learn what an ad hominem is. Worst application of the term I've seen on HN in a while.
      - somenameforme 3y ago
        You're again failing to even hint at what you think this "really good argument" is, and you're also not formulating an argument yourself. Your argument relies on ignoring all evidence and simply assuming your provably false assumption that the world of academia is this amazing place free of bias where merit and objectivity are truly all that matter. As for retractions. Things move, at best, slowly even when overt. The Lancet's also the journal that published the MMR-Autism paper, back in 1998. It wasn't fully retracted until 2010 (there was a partial retraction in 2004). And even then it wasn't due to this beautiful system you've built up in your mind, but rather a an investigation from one of Murdoch's newspapers showing the paper's author was a conman.