3 ms·

Considering the "COVID lab-leak hypothesis is a conspiracy theory" discourse was literally a conspiracy by Nature and China to prevent criticism and on a month-

Considering the "COVID lab-leak hypothesis is a conspiracy theory" discourse was literally a conspiracy by Nature and China to prevent criticism and on a month-by-month basis more evidence of it is coming out I'm very skeptical of blindly trusting scientific institutions to accurately label misinformation from the politically-inconvenient truths. https://theintercept.com/2023/07/12/covid-documents-house-republicans/ https://theintercept.com/2023/07/12/covid-documents-house-re...

karmakurtisaani 3y ago
This is not going against science. Where are the peer-reviewed papers? What experiments were made? This is criticising authorities, which is the flipside of the trade off I wrote about before. Free speech working as intended. Note that no-one benefited from spreading the lab-theory, so odds are higher it should be at least allowed to enter the public discourse.
- hotdogscout 3y ago
  How can you have peer-reviewed papers about classified information? China allowed a small team to analyze a glimpse of data while leaks show that team constantly referencing the Nature editorial and "China" not allowing dissent from a natural origin conclusion. Even after the paper was published the team was scared for their careers because at any moment a whistleblower could come out. The people who were asking for transparecy were to be dismissed by the team under the "conspiracy theorist" label. https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/why-proximal-origins-must-be-retracted https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/why-proximal-origins-mu...
  - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
    Edit: writing in a hurry, have to read the link more carefully. Ok, so the case is a pretty decent edge case. However, I wrote "deliberately going against science", which I don't see happening here. Here, people did more science disagreeing with other science (if you can call it that). In this case the first "research" seems to have an agenda and should indeed warrant criticism. And the criticism is good with data to back it up. The same does not happen with climate denialists for example - just plain old misinformation with an agenda. They are free to publish papers, yet don't seem to be able to, at least with convincing results.
    - hotdogscout 3y ago
      A distilled version of the strongest points of this discussion is in this post (in my opinion). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36946171#36948005 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36946171#36948005
      - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
        Sorry, I updated my reply after thinking a bit more carefully. To put my point in short: I don't think we should call something that has data to back it up and the intention to get to the truth misinformation in the context of this discussion. Regardless how it's labelled by authorities.
        hotdogscout 3y ago
        >something that has data to back it up and the intention to get to the truth misinformation It's hard to infer people's intention. Maybe I'm being naive but I think even flat earthers have the earnest intention of getting to the truth and use data and observations. My algorithm to deal with untruth is engaging with everyone and asking for clarification/evidence. To me creating a blanket label for "people you should never listen to" is dangerous.

karmakurtisaani 3y ago

This is not going against science. Where are the peer-reviewed papers? What experiments were made? This is criticising authorities, which is the flipside of the trade off I wrote about before. Free speech working as intended. Note that no-one benefited from spreading the lab-theory, so odds are higher it should be at least allowed to enter the public discourse.

hotdogscout 3y ago
How can you have peer-reviewed papers about classified information? China allowed a small team to analyze a glimpse of data while leaks show that team constantly referencing the Nature editorial and "China" not allowing dissent from a natural origin conclusion. Even after the paper was published the team was scared for their careers because at any moment a whistleblower could come out. The people who were asking for transparecy were to be dismissed by the team under the "conspiracy theorist" label. https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/why-proximal-origins-must-be-retracted https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/why-proximal-origins-mu...
- karmakurtisaani 3y ago
  Edit: writing in a hurry, have to read the link more carefully. Ok, so the case is a pretty decent edge case. However, I wrote "deliberately going against science", which I don't see happening here. Here, people did more science disagreeing with other science (if you can call it that). In this case the first "research" seems to have an agenda and should indeed warrant criticism. And the criticism is good with data to back it up. The same does not happen with climate denialists for example - just plain old misinformation with an agenda. They are free to publish papers, yet don't seem to be able to, at least with convincing results.
  - hotdogscout 3y ago
    A distilled version of the strongest points of this discussion is in this post (in my opinion). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36946171#36948005 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36946171#36948005
    - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
      Sorry, I updated my reply after thinking a bit more carefully. To put my point in short: I don't think we should call something that has data to back it up and the intention to get to the truth misinformation in the context of this discussion. Regardless how it's labelled by authorities.
      - hotdogscout 3y ago
        >something that has data to back it up and the intention to get to the truth misinformation It's hard to infer people's intention. Maybe I'm being naive but I think even flat earthers have the earnest intention of getting to the truth and use data and observations. My algorithm to deal with untruth is engaging with everyone and asking for clarification/evidence. To me creating a blanket label for "people you should never listen to" is dangerous.