4 ms·
You're misrepresenting my argument at the top. My argument here is "We don't know that this was created in a lab, and it's unreasonable to assume it was when w
by xracy 3y ago
You're misrepresenting my argument at the top.
My argument here is "We don't know that this was created in a lab, and it's unreasonable to assume it was when we have evidence that it wasn't created in a lab." It's even more unreasonable to create policy based on this wild speculation.
> How is anyone supposed to prove or even provide evidence of such a thing if China doesn't cooperate? And that's really the reason this has exploded. China is not cooperating. No one knows, and that's suspicious.
Difficulty in obtaining evidence doesn't change the burden of proof from "proving a positive" to "disproving a negative".
"Suspicious" is not "damning evidence." But also my understanding is that scientists have studied the virus and determined it doesn't have any of the hallmarks they would expect from a human-altered virus.
- anon291 3y ago> My argument here is "We don't know that this was created in a lab, and it's unreasonable to assume it was when we have evidence that it wasn't created in a lab." Unless something major has changed, I don't believe we have firm evidence either way. > Difficulty in obtaining evidence doesn't change the burden of proof from "proving a positive" to "disproving a negative". When difficulty obtaining evidence has to do with geopolitics, rather than science, then yes it becomes very diferent. Because geopolitics, and people, you can convince, investigate, and hold accountable. Science and nature less so. That's why this is important. Anyway, your entire purpose making your argument is to question the need for any investigation it seems. That is why it seemingly excuses the fact that we have not actually investigated the lab in any meaningful way. I don't believe this is acceptable.