4 ms·

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

by 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
        This is the argument. This is not a hint, a clue, an implication, it is me directly stating what the argument is: 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.
        somenameforme 3y ago
        Okay, so let's go back to 1998 and some 'Slack' (IRC?) chats leak of Mr. MMR vax => autism guy. And he lays out everything pretty plainly - he's publishing it to sell some junk snake oil he's built up. Would you still be here going "No, that doesn't matter. It's been published, so it must be true. If it can be published, peer reviewed, it must be the legitimate word of science!" Or...?

by Zetice 3y ago

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
        This is the argument. This is not a hint, a clue, an implication, it is me directly stating what the argument is: 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.
        somenameforme 3y ago
        Okay, so let's go back to 1998 and some 'Slack' (IRC?) chats leak of Mr. MMR vax => autism guy. And he lays out everything pretty plainly - he's publishing it to sell some junk snake oil he's built up. Would you still be here going "No, that doesn't matter. It's been published, so it must be true. If it can be published, peer reviewed, it must be the legitimate word of science!" Or...?