Scientists Are Never Political?

[seer]

We were told by our betters, our scientific overlords, that any talk about a man made virus was a conspiracy theory.

Then

The Lancet letter (also referred to as Calisher et al. 2020) was a statement made in support of scientists and medical professionals in China fighting the outbreak of COVID-19, and condemning theories suggesting that the virus does not have a natural origin, which it referred to as "conspiracy theories".^[1][2] The letter was published in The Lancet on February 19, 2020, and signed by 27 prominent scientists, gaining a further 20,000 signatures in a Change.org petition.^[3][4]The letter generated significant controversy over the alleged conflicts of interest of its authors, and the chilling effect it had on scientists proposing that the COVID-19 lab leak theory be investigated.^[5][6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)

And now

Fauci's ex-boss now says COVID-19 lab leak theory was credible, despite previous claims it was a distraction

Former National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Francis Collins admitted to members of Congress last week that the coronavirus lab leak theory was in fact credible, despite his claims in 2021, in which he called it a "distraction."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fau...ms-distraction

[Sam]

The technical debate over zoonotic origin vs lab leak was always a credible discussion. What I told people at the time, and has only proven truer as evidence for zoonotic origin became increasingly stronger, was that there is a difference between experts debating evidence and laypersons waving about half-true headlines of journal articles and technical facts that they don't understand. Conspiracy theories immediately overpowered any rational and empirical discussion in the news, let alone in the chatter. It was a debate unfit for almost everyone who waded into it.

To be clear, a lab leak remains implausible — and has become more implausible as evidence became available. Anyone trying to do a victory lap over the credibility of the lab leak theory needs to first account for how credible their claims were and whether they can honestly say they were working off the best information they could actively find at the time.

That's not going to be very many people.

-Sam

[Starlight]

US conservatives seem to consistently confuse two different hypotheses about the origin. Then they get upset and confused when scientists say something different about each of the two hypotheses. This seems more of that.

To use a lion analogy, the options are:
1. A wild lion attacked people.
2. A lion was held in a zoo for a while, then escaped the zoo and attacked people.
3. Dr Frankenstein owned a zoo in which he did many weird experiments on animals, and he created a new Lion-Tiger-Bear hybrid, which escaped and attacked people.

Conservatives don't seem to have the mental capacity to distinguish #2 from #3. So whenever scientists say that the virus isn't man-made (rejecting #3) conservatives mistakenly think the scientists are rejecting #2. And when scientists say a lab leak is plausible (endorsing #2) conservatives mistakenly think the scientists are endorsing #3.

You would think 3 years would be long enough for even US conservatives to manage to get their heads around 3 different options. But no, they can apparently only count to 2. They can only conceive of #1 and #3 and seem to lack the mental faculties to understand the concept of a zoo.

[Diogenes]

US conservatives seem to consistently confuse two different hypotheses about the origin. Then they get upset and confused when scientists say something different about each of the two hypotheses. This seems more of that.

To use a lion analogy, the options are:
1. A wild lion attacked people.
2. A lion was held in a zoo for a while, then escaped the zoo and attacked people.
3. Dr Frankenstein owned a zoo in which he did many weird experiments on animals, and he created a new Lion-Tiger-Bear hybrid, which escaped and attacked people.

Conservatives don't seem to have the mental capacity to distinguish #2 from #3. So whenever scientists say that the virus isn't man-made (rejecting #3) conservatives mistakenly think the scientists are rejecting #2. And when scientists say a lab leak is plausible (endorsing #2) conservatives mistakenly think the scientists are endorsing #3.

You would think 3 years would be long enough for even US conservatives to manage to get their heads around 3 different options. But no, they can apparently only count to 2. They can only conceive of #1 and #3 and seem to lack the mental faculties to understand the concept of a zoo.

When humans conduct gain of function research, that would qualify as option #3.

[Starlight]

When humans conduct gain of function research, that would qualify as option #3.

Theres disagreement even among scientists over what does or doesn't count as 'gain of function'. It would then introduce a continuum of options between #2 and #3. But if conservatives can't mentally cope with 3 options, they're sure not going to cope with a continuum.

[Diogenes]

Theres disagreement even among scientists over what does or doesn't count as 'gain of function'.

People who don't want to admit to gain of function research will certainly disagree with any definition of gain of function research.

According to an email, Fauci knew gain of function research was taking place at the Wuhan lab.

[seer]

The technical debate over zoonotic origin vs lab leak was always a credible discussion. What I told people at the time, and has only proven truer as evidence for zoonotic origin became increasingly stronger, was that there is a difference between experts debating evidence and laypersons waving about half-true headlines of journal articles and technical facts that they don't understand. Conspiracy theories immediately overpowered any rational and empirical discussion in the news, let alone in the chatter. It was a debate unfit for almost everyone who waded into it.

But that was not what these scientists were saying - they were saying that the lab leak idea itself was a conspiracy theory. Which they had no way knowing at the time, and as my link concluded:

The letter generated significant controversy over the alleged conflicts of interest of its authors, and the chilling effect it had on scientists proposing that the COVID-19 lab leak theory be investigated.

To be clear, a lab leak remains implausible — and has become more implausible as evidence became available. Anyone trying to do a victory lap over the credibility of the lab leak theory needs to first account for how credible their claims were and whether they can honestly say they were working off the best information they could actively find at the time.

That's not going to be very many people.

-Sam

Then why did Francis Collins say the lab leak theory was in fact credible?

[Sam]

But that was not what these scientists were saying - they were saying that the lab leak idea itself was a conspiracy theory. Which they had no way knowing at the time, and as my link concluded:

The letter generated significant controversy over the alleged conflicts of interest of its authors, and the chilling effect it had on scientists proposing that the COVID-19 lab leak theory be investigated.






Then why did Francis Collins say the lab leak theory was in fact credible?

Quite possibly you misunderstand the distinction between "credible" and "plausible". They are not synonymous.

If, on the other hand, Collins believes, at this point, that a lab leak was plausible, I would be interested to see him discuss the current evidence and analyses demonstrating the implausibility of a lab leak at WIV.

-Sam

[seer]

Quite possibly you misunderstand the distinction between "credible" and "plausible". They are not synonymous.

If, on the other hand, Collins believes, at this point, that a lab leak was plausible, I would be interested to see him discuss the current evidence and analyses demonstrating the implausibility of a lab leak at WIV.

-Sam

It seem to me that implausible and credible are pretty much opposites...

[Sam]

It seem to me that implausible and credible are pretty much opposites...

Well, then there's your trouble. A credible theory, in this jargon, is one that should not be dismissed out of hand. It does not make it plausible. Collins certainly didn't say that zoonotic origin was not credible. If "credible" and "plausible" were synonymous, then we'd be saying both were plausible over the other.

Lab leak is a credible theory, in its most technical and basic elements, when stripped of all the lies and ignorant add-ons. It has become less and less plausible, however, as evidence stacked up for zoonotic origin. It's something that reasonable and skilled people can debate, in other words, though the debate is heavily skewed toward zoonotic origin at this point.

-Sam

[seer]

Well, then there's your trouble. A credible theory, in this jargon, is one that should not be dismissed out of hand. It does not make it plausible. Collins certainly didn't say that zoonotic origin was not credible. If "credible" and "plausible" were synonymous, then we'd be saying both were plausible over the other.

-Sam

So a credible theory can also be implausible? How can it be credible if it is implausible? In what sense would it be credible?

[Sam]

So a credible theory can also be implausible? How can it be credible if it is implausible? In what sense would it be credible?

In that it is reasonably possible and can be discussed on the basis of credible evidence. "China developed and intentionally released a bioweapon virus" is not a credible theory, as it lacks any basis in fact. "WIV labs accidentally leaked a virus" is a credible theory, in that it has basis in reasonable facts (e.g., WIV worked on coronaviruses, had potential safety issues, etc.) but was made implausible early on through fact-finding and has only become more implausible as evidence accumulated.

You simply need to understand that the word's definition is broader than your use.

-Sam

[seer]

"WIV labs accidentally leaked a virus" is a credible theory, in that it has basis in reasonable facts (e.g., WIV worked on coronaviruses, had potential safety issues, etc.) but was made implausible early on through fact-finding and has only become more implausible as evidence accumulated.

-Sam

No, that doesn't make sense. If the lab leak theory is implausible then in what sense does Collins still believe that it is a credible theory?

[Sparko]

No, that doesn't make sense. If the lab leak theory is implausible then in what sense does Collins still believe that it is a credible theory?

We have evidence that they were conducting "gain of function" research at the Wuhan lab and that we even funded some of it. Sure sounds "plausible" to me. We may never have absolute proof.

[Sam]

No, that doesn't make sense. If the lab leak theory is implausible then in what sense does Collins still believe that it is a credible theory?

This has been explained twice now. From here on out, you're on your own, I'm afraid.

-Sam