4 ms·

It's not the only scientifically supported theory, it's the only Scientifically supported theory. science is the thing you do. Science is the thing you trust.

eimrine 3y ago
Are you talking about a lab-leak hypothesis? When did it became a theory?
- telmo 3y ago
  How could lab-leak ever become a theory? A theory is an explanation of some repeatable pattern of phenomena that is observed in nature and that can be empirically verified. "Lab-leak" is a single possible event, that may or not have happened. The most that can happen is for strong evidence to emerge for or against the hypothesis that this specific event occurred.
  - Retric 3y ago
    There’s plenty of debated scientific theories around single events such as what killed off the dinosaurs or how old the universe is etc. Testability happens when you accurately predict what evidence will be found, ie there’s excess iridium globally at the K-T boundary. Similarly there’s theories around collections of events such as the timing of the ice ages which are collectively significant.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      There is, but all possibly viable theories will have to incorporate the available evidence.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Mostly, some of the available evidence in any domain will come from experimental error etc. Even the hard sciences gets messy at the edges.
    - telmo 3y ago
      That is a very good point, you have convinced me.
  - eimrine 3y ago
    > "Lab-leak" is a single possible event I don't agree because there are plethora of possible details depending on level of conspiracy. Was the virus synthesized at least partly? Was the virus selected from a number of not so harmful viruses? Was the virus went from naively non-infected bat when the fact is that it was infected? Was the lab-leak done intentionally, kind of something able to pause WW3? And so on and on.
- spamizbad 3y ago
  It didn’t. There’s some evidence (taken in isolation) that might point to such a thing could potentially occur but data and historic evidence points to the wet market. At this point I feel like the argument is over some broader meta-argument that the lab leak hypothesis was dismissed too aggressively and the consensus formed too quickly over the wet market.
  - stringsandchars 3y ago
    > but data and historic evidence points to the wet market Because almost no-one has covered this news, you may have missed that the data pointing at the wet-market (from Worobey et al) has been thoroughly debunked using solid scientific data.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  You empiricists often loose the plot when it comes to these sort of matters. A thought experiment: A murder during a fancy dinner party. Victim was shot in the head with a 9mm round. Guest A is very evasive and was in the vicinity where the body was found. Guest A is known to have a 9mm handgun. Guest A quickly destroys his handgun and forensics cannot recover any information from it. Guest A writes a letter explaining that the shot came from outside the house, without any mention of his potential role in the murder, and his friends at the local newspaper not only run the letter, citing him as a expert, but run hit pieces that anyone claiming otherwise is a racist. Reason allows us to know Guest A was involved. In the absence of evidence sometimes reason is all you have. This is one of those cases, no science is required just a little life experience.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    This analogy gets a little strained when wild Glocks breed in the vicinity of the home, and have randomly shot people fairly regularly over the course of the house's existence. "Guest A quickly destroys his handgun" is, thus far, not supported by evidence in the lab leak hypothesis, which posits but has never proven the existence of samples of SARS-CoV-2 in the lab.
dragonelite 3y ago
Science and theories has been used politically for centuries. Such as malthusian theory and Darwin's survival of the fittest to support colonialism. To free market and competitive advantages as a way to destabilise domestic economics in global south. western people will believe in the wuhan virus leak and some others will believe in Fort detrick virus leak theories. You also had Russians finding a lot of virus labs in ukraine etc. The world will split into multiple realities and histories.
SantalBlush 3y ago
>science is the thing you do. Not really. We can build vinegar and baking soda volcanoes in our kitchens, but we can't build particle accelerators. You will never personally prove where COVID-19 originated, so if you don't want to rely on trusting other accounts, you'll need to permanently abstain from holding an opinion either way.
paulsutter 3y ago
I think you're saying - science is the methodology, - Science is the institution that requires trust to be believed? Folks might interpret your comment to mean we should trust the institution, when of course we all know it's a grave error to trust institutions. Institutions get captured, usually by low-iq lifers Richard Feynman: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts... science - a.k.a. research - is in the making, belongs to the (unknown, yet to be discovered) future, while expertise is based on the past, with in-built obsolescence"
fluidcruft 3y ago
It's always interesting that the conspiracy theorists go after their own government and don't seem to stop and think how easily all of Science can be manipulated by a motivated intelligence service. It's easy enough for actual scientists to get away with fabricating data. Imagine what a motivated adversary could do to misdirect Science. Scientists can be far too trusting.

eimrine 3y ago

Are you talking about a lab-leak hypothesis? When did it became a theory?

telmo 3y ago
How could lab-leak ever become a theory? A theory is an explanation of some repeatable pattern of phenomena that is observed in nature and that can be empirically verified. "Lab-leak" is a single possible event, that may or not have happened. The most that can happen is for strong evidence to emerge for or against the hypothesis that this specific event occurred.
- Retric 3y ago
  There’s plenty of debated scientific theories around single events such as what killed off the dinosaurs or how old the universe is etc. Testability happens when you accurately predict what evidence will be found, ie there’s excess iridium globally at the K-T boundary. Similarly there’s theories around collections of events such as the timing of the ice ages which are collectively significant.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    There is, but all possibly viable theories will have to incorporate the available evidence.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Mostly, some of the available evidence in any domain will come from experimental error etc. Even the hard sciences gets messy at the edges.
  - telmo 3y ago
    That is a very good point, you have convinced me.
- eimrine 3y ago
  > "Lab-leak" is a single possible event I don't agree because there are plethora of possible details depending on level of conspiracy. Was the virus synthesized at least partly? Was the virus selected from a number of not so harmful viruses? Was the virus went from naively non-infected bat when the fact is that it was infected? Was the lab-leak done intentionally, kind of something able to pause WW3? And so on and on.
spamizbad 3y ago
It didn’t. There’s some evidence (taken in isolation) that might point to such a thing could potentially occur but data and historic evidence points to the wet market. At this point I feel like the argument is over some broader meta-argument that the lab leak hypothesis was dismissed too aggressively and the consensus formed too quickly over the wet market.
- stringsandchars 3y ago
  > but data and historic evidence points to the wet market Because almost no-one has covered this news, you may have missed that the data pointing at the wet-market (from Worobey et al) has been thoroughly debunked using solid scientific data.
willcipriano 3y ago
You empiricists often loose the plot when it comes to these sort of matters. A thought experiment: A murder during a fancy dinner party. Victim was shot in the head with a 9mm round. Guest A is very evasive and was in the vicinity where the body was found. Guest A is known to have a 9mm handgun. Guest A quickly destroys his handgun and forensics cannot recover any information from it. Guest A writes a letter explaining that the shot came from outside the house, without any mention of his potential role in the murder, and his friends at the local newspaper not only run the letter, citing him as a expert, but run hit pieces that anyone claiming otherwise is a racist. Reason allows us to know Guest A was involved. In the absence of evidence sometimes reason is all you have. This is one of those cases, no science is required just a little life experience.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  This analogy gets a little strained when wild Glocks breed in the vicinity of the home, and have randomly shot people fairly regularly over the course of the house's existence. "Guest A quickly destroys his handgun" is, thus far, not supported by evidence in the lab leak hypothesis, which posits but has never proven the existence of samples of SARS-CoV-2 in the lab.

dragonelite 3y ago

Science and theories has been used politically for centuries. Such as malthusian theory and Darwin's survival of the fittest to support colonialism. To free market and competitive advantages as a way to destabilise domestic economics in global south. western people will believe in the wuhan virus leak and some others will believe in Fort detrick virus leak theories. You also had Russians finding a lot of virus labs in ukraine etc. The world will split into multiple realities and histories.

SantalBlush 3y ago

>science is the thing you do. Not really. We can build vinegar and baking soda volcanoes in our kitchens, but we can't build particle accelerators. You will never personally prove where COVID-19 originated, so if you don't want to rely on trusting other accounts, you'll need to permanently abstain from holding an opinion either way.

paulsutter 3y ago

I think you're saying - science is the methodology, - Science is the institution that requires trust to be believed? Folks might interpret your comment to mean we should trust the institution, when of course we all know it's a grave error to trust institutions. Institutions get captured, usually by low-iq lifers Richard Feynman: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts... science - a.k.a. research - is in the making, belongs to the (unknown, yet to be discovered) future, while expertise is based on the past, with in-built obsolescence"

fluidcruft 3y ago

It's always interesting that the conspiracy theorists go after their own government and don't seem to stop and think how easily all of Science can be manipulated by a motivated intelligence service. It's easy enough for actual scientists to get away with fabricating data. Imagine what a motivated adversary could do to misdirect Science. Scientists can be far too trusting.