3 ms·

Well, I guess that’s the problem with choosing to use words like “never” and “always” in your argument, and trying to overgeneralize, no? It makes you easily su

by dahart 3y ago

Well, I guess that’s the problem with choosing to use words like “never” and “always” in your argument, and trying to overgeneralize, no? It makes you easily susceptible to proof by contradiction. Why do you think hand-washing or the shape of the earth are “extreme” examples of scientific consensus? I think they’re both great here because they both had huge political debates, and scientific consensus eventually prevailed. There are many many more examples of basic scientific consensus that nobody argues and that demonstrate the claims of comment I replied to are false. Are you asking for more examples? BTW hand-washing was the opening example in the article. Doesn’t that make it absolutely fair game in this context?

AlbertCory 3y ago
If you want a hard-and-fast definition of "consensus" you won't find one. There are still people who'll argue against evolution, but that pretty much IS a consensus. On the other hand, lab-leak was NOT a consensus. It was a Party line. A real consensus doesn't emerge in just a few months. There isn't time for contrary evidence and arguments to emerge.
- dahart 3y ago
  Exactly, I agree with that. We have scientific and apolitical consensus on lots of things, and it very much is consensus for all practical purposes, regardless of whether there is a strict definition or a few loud contrarians. The Covid lab leak idea/debate was always a political and obviously nationalistic argument, not really a scientific one. And I agree there hasn’t been enough time or evidence for it to settle into a scientific consensus yet. There might be scientists who participate in the politics (or there might only be politicians pretending to be scientists and/or putting words in the mouths of scientists), but I’m not arguing whether there’s consensus about the lab leak. I only interjected to counter @Blackstrat’s over-generalizing claims that consensus always means politics, which is untrue, and that all science is corrupt and there’s “always” the possibility of a different answer. The whole notion that science is corrupt and untrustworthy is a talking point of the culture-war political party line of the far right, and the agenda is to distract from discussing real policy. Unfortunately, it’s actually working on the lay-public, and too many people now think ‘science’ is a bad thing even though there is no alternative that can get us to truth faster than science. It scares me that so many people choose to believe in conspiracy everywhere and don’t seem to understand what science is.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    There IS no alternative, and the scientists have the responsibility to keep the public's trust. Which they failed.
    - dahart 3y ago
      All scientists failed?

by dahart 3y ago

AlbertCory 3y ago

If you want a hard-and-fast definition of "consensus" you won't find one. There are still people who'll argue against evolution, but that pretty much IS a consensus. On the other hand, lab-leak was NOT a consensus. It was a Party line. A real consensus doesn't emerge in just a few months. There isn't time for contrary evidence and arguments to emerge.

dahart 3y ago
Exactly, I agree with that. We have scientific and apolitical consensus on lots of things, and it very much is consensus for all practical purposes, regardless of whether there is a strict definition or a few loud contrarians. The Covid lab leak idea/debate was always a political and obviously nationalistic argument, not really a scientific one. And I agree there hasn’t been enough time or evidence for it to settle into a scientific consensus yet. There might be scientists who participate in the politics (or there might only be politicians pretending to be scientists and/or putting words in the mouths of scientists), but I’m not arguing whether there’s consensus about the lab leak. I only interjected to counter @Blackstrat’s over-generalizing claims that consensus always means politics, which is untrue, and that all science is corrupt and there’s “always” the possibility of a different answer. The whole notion that science is corrupt and untrustworthy is a talking point of the culture-war political party line of the far right, and the agenda is to distract from discussing real policy. Unfortunately, it’s actually working on the lay-public, and too many people now think ‘science’ is a bad thing even though there is no alternative that can get us to truth faster than science. It scares me that so many people choose to believe in conspiracy everywhere and don’t seem to understand what science is.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  There IS no alternative, and the scientists have the responsibility to keep the public's trust. Which they failed.
  - dahart 3y ago
    All scientists failed?