SARS-CoV-2: conspiracy theories and politics

Conversation Side Conversation
21

Actually, no, I believed what he said at the time, which was that he did not directly pressure JWR to seek a deferred prosecution agreement. But I believed it likely he had tried to influence the decision in more indirect ways that skirted the limits of what would have been acceptable, and you notice he did not deny this. In the end, when all the evidence came out, that was the most likely account of what happened.

So bad analogy.

By those criteria the claim that the moon landings were faked is not a conspiracy theory.

22

Yeah and I’ll be happy to leave the politics aside, but you asked me a question I felt deserved an answer. I think there are many possible motivations that different parties have for propagating the idea of a lab-leak-scenario, and we should be mindful of all of them, and we should be mindful about how “facts on the ground”(available evidence) can change over time, so that we don’t fall for overly simplistic ideas of victimization like “it only and exclusively wasn’t being taken seriously then because everyone just mindlessly hates orange man, but is only and exclusively being taken seriously now because everyone is mindlessly fawning at Biden”.

1 Like
23

No, that’s really not correct. Wikipedia has a decent article on the characteristics of conspiracy theories. It’s not a conspiracy theory to think that a president’s press spokesman is lying about something, or that a company representative isn’t being completely honest about the company’s liability for an accident.

What you’re doing is hindering discussion, not helping it.

4 Likes
24

glipsnortSteve SchaffnerComputational Biologist

Faizal_Ali

5m

No, that’s really not correct. Wikipedia has a decent article on the characteristics of conspiracy theories. It’s not a conspiracy theory to think that a president’s press spokesman is lying about something, or that a company representative isn’t being completely honest about the company’s liability for an accident.

What you’re doing is hindering discussion, not helping it.

I do not mean to directly disagree with any of you two, I would just like to add that a non-fringe conspiracy is sometimes misinterpreted and misrepresented by amateurs and cracks on the Internet and they come up with fringe conspiracy theories out of them. So, when there really is a non-fringe conspiracy, it is bound to be muddied by conspiracy theorists who will spin it into their delusionary analysis. But, of course, we also get conspiracy theories out of mundane issues: snowballs not melting, therefore it contains plastic and sent by Bill Gates, or that if you get vaccinated, you will get a magnetic arm [and people producing fake videos showing 3 tablespoons being stuck on a vaccinated arm]. There are some academic books on Conspiracy Theories, but I have yet to read them, I’ve only collected them thus far.

25

My ask would be to drop the term totally. It is so grade school.

I’d say with the utmost respect, ‘so what’? I think you and I are not likely far from one another if at all.
Sorry, but again with analogies. There are probably academic books on fascism. It doesn’t mean that the average Joe that comments on YouTube knows what fascism is, nor, and just as important, that his readers know what it is.
If someone denies the moon landings, rather than affix a mere ‘label’ to them, I’d ask what evidence they have for their position.
I’d say that all but the most restricted use of the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ here is both not ‘peaceful’ and not ‘science’.
But then, a little self-reflection that that moniker might be little more than pretension, be in order.

26

SamSam Foerster

BrianLopez

1m

My ask would be to drop the term totally.

I’d say with the utmost respect, ‘so what’? I think you and I are not likely far from one another if at all.
Sorry, but again with analogies. There are probably academic books on fascism. It doesn’t mean that the average Joe that comments on YouTube knows what fascism is, nor, and just as important, that his readers know what it is.
If someone denies the moon landings, rather than affix a mere ‘label’ to them, I’d ask what evidence they have for their position.
I’d say that all but the most restricted use of the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ here is both not ‘peaceful’ and not ‘science’.
But then, a little self-reflection that that moniker might be little more than pretension, be in order.

???

I think you over-read what I typed Sam. I said there are academic books on the subject of Conspiracy Theories that assesses them in an academic way to better understand the phenomenon (rather than just reading Wikipedia). Your comment doesn’t in any way correctly reflect the fact that there are academic books on the subject matter and what I meant to say by it.

27

Over-read? That is as ambiguous as conspiracy theory. :slight_smile:
If you mean that I misunderstood - sadly that is not a first or last.
My point is that even if the word by some authoritative lexicon has a narrow and specific meaning, this is irrelevant to how it is used in common parlance.
It seems to be used almost exclusively as an insult, how ‘peaceful science’ is that, while seemingly oblivious of the fact that people conspire all around us on a regular basis, and with either treachery or love as their motivation.
Treachery - think of me a carpenter, working for you, and you paying me ‘under the table’. We conspire and want our actions kept from the eyes of the authorities.
Love - think of your friends planning a surprise birthday party for you. They conspire to ‘deceive’ you.
C.S. Lewis lamented words losing there meaning here,
"The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. if you said he was not “a gentleman” you were not insulting him, but giving
information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said-so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully — “ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?” They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is “a gentleman” becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A “nice” meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. as a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work)
wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

I guess I just lament the willingness of the group here to use a word that carries little clear meaning despite your assertion that there may be technical works that use the term in a precise way.
Communication will not happen if the idea in Person A’s head doesn’t arrive precisely in Person B’s head. As the idea in Person B’s head differs from that of Person A’s is the extent of the miscommunication.
Does anyone care?
Does anyone here, ever take a moment to examine if we actually do ‘peaceful science’.
I am certainly wondering how this dialog differs from other discussion boards. Ok, so I guess the expletives are banished, is that it?
In the bible we find exhortations to examine ourselves to see that we are truly in the faith.
Do any here ever examine ourselves to see if we are truly doing peaceful science?

28

Over-read? That is as ambiguous as conspiracy theory. :slight_smile:
If you mean that I misunderstood - sadly that is not a first or last.
My point is that even if the word by some authoritative lexicon has a narrow and specific meaning, this is irrelevant to how it is used in common parlance.
It seems to be used almost exclusively as an insult, how ‘peaceful science’ is that, while seemingly oblivious of the fact that people conspire all around us on a regular basis, and with either treachery or love as their motivation.

But Sam, what you are unpacking in your comment has nothing to do with what I said! Reading your entire comment, I would agree that maybe we want to distance ourselves from a particular label, and I am extremely well aware of how labels can be misused. Words can have different meanings by different usages and words can easily change meaning over time (semantic shift). But, none of this reflects what I was pointing to. For now, all I meant to say by “There are some academic books on Conspiracy Theories” is that if we want to inform ourselves better, there are works that exist for us to read. I dont have a list of books right now, they are scattered, but take a look at the title of these papers:

Belief in Conspiracy Theories - The Influence of Uncertainty and Perceived Morality - Jan-Willem van Prooijen and Nils B. Jostmann (EJSP, Feb. 2013)

Conspiracy Theories in the Classroom - Problems and Potential Solutions - Asbjorn Dyrendal and Daniel Jolley (Religions, Sept. 2020)

The Study of Conspiracy Theories - Joseph E. Uscinski (Argumenta, 2018)

Science Denial and COVID Conspiracy Theories Potential Neurological Mechanisms and Possible Responses - Bruce L. Miller (JAMA, Nov. 2020)

Understanding Conspiracy Theories - Karen M. Douglas et al. (Political Psychology, 2019)

Belief in conspiracy theories - The predictive role of schizotypy, Machiavellianism, and primary psychopathy - Evita March and Jordan Springer (PLOS ONE, Dec. 2019)

Does Perceived Lack of Control Lead to Conspiracy Theory Beliefs - Ana Stojanov et al. (PLOS ONE, Aug. 2020)

Social psychological origins of conspiracy theories - the case of the Jewish conspiracy theory in Malaysia - Viren Swami (Frontiers in Psychology, Aug. 2012)

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Psychological Research on Conspiracy Beliefs - Andreas Goreis and Martin Voracek (PSP, Feb. 2019)

Conspiracy theories as part of history - The role of societal crisis situations - Jan-Willem van Prooijen and Karen M. Douglas (Memory Studies, June 2017)

The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories - Karen M. Douglas et al. (CDPS, 2017)

Conspiracy Theories - Evolved Functions and Psychological Mechanisms - Jan-Willem van Prooijen and Mark van Vugt (PPS, Sept. 2018)

Belief in conspiracy theories - Basic principles of an emerging research domain - Jan-Willem van Prooijen and Karen M. Douglas (EJSP, Dec. 2018)

So, for now, we’ll keep using what the literature is already using. I understood you, but it’s already used that way.

1 Like
29

“So, for now, we’ll keep using what the literature is already using.”
???
It - I assume we are talking about the phrase conspiracy theory? But it is being used in every manner of ways.
“but it’s already used that way.”
Again, it is being used in every manner of ways.

30

I don’t find this discussion over semantics particularly interesting or productive. I call the lab leak a conspiracy theory because a) it entails believing in a conspiracy involving the Chinese gov’t, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and possibly other bodies as well, and b) there is no good evidence to support the existence of such a conspiracy.

Others are welcome to use a term of their choosing to refer to this claim. I probably won’t object.

2 Likes
31

Faizal_AliAnti-Creationist Psychiatrist

29m

I don’t find this discussion over semantics particularly interesting or productive. I call the lab leak a conspiracy theory because a) it entails believing in a conspiracy involving the Chinese gov’t, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and possibly other bodies as well, and b) there is no good evidence to support the existence of such a conspiracy.

Others are welcome to use a term of their choosing to refer to this claim. I probably won’t object.

I agree :+1:

1 Like
32

An interesting piece relevant to this conversation

33

Isn’t there a huge difference between people claiming that SARS-CoV-2 leaked out of a lab
and
people claiming that SARS-CoV-2 may have leaked out of a lab.
I have the feeling that most if not all here that speak against the lab leak idea paint them as the former.
I think that is a wish-fulfillment caricature and that most of these people want the lab leak to be investigated.
I’m rather astounded at the demand that those who merely want the lab leak hypothesis thoroughly investigated provide proof. It is putting the cart before the horse. That is what the investigation would be for - to discover what evidence may exist and what conclusion it might lead to. For those that have a predilection to favor the natural occurrence scenario they somehow see the destruction of evidence (or the denial of access to it) as a point of evidence in favor of their theory. That is astounding.
Tell you what would be another effective strategy, let’s call them conspiracy theorists.

1 Like
34

No more huge than that between people claiming NASA faked the moon landing, and those saying NASA may have faked the moon landing.

Or, for that matter, between those saying creationism is definitely true and evolution is false, and those saying creationism may be true, so we should teach it as a serious option alongside evolution.

It has been investigated. Investigators from the WHO have interviewed workers from the lab. They are satisfied that there is nothing suspicious that would suggest a lab leak. The genome of the virus has been sequenced and it is not closely enough related to any virus that has been investigated or stored in this, or any other, lab to have been engineered from it.

What further investigation is justified, do you think?

35

You should ask Biden, the WHO, Fauci, Collins, the signatories of the recent Science letter etc…, who all have recently asked for a more thorough investigation of sars-cov-2 origin!

36

This doesn’t seem quite right @Faizal_Ali. A lab leak, in and of itself, is not an unreasonable option (and one that doesn’t require off-the-wall conspiracy theories). Lots of people (scientists, intelligence folks, etc.) have said that it was a possibility that should be investigated. Now, you were specifically talking about the difference between saying something happening and saying something may have happened, but it seems like you are doing a “guilt by association” here.

In all these discussions it seems like everybody acknowledges that a lab leak is possible. The vast majority I think believe it should be investigated. What seems to differentiate people here is what level of plausibility warrants an inference that it did or didn’t happen. Some will take a 95% chance it was zoonotic/5% chance it was a lab leak and say “case closed, no lab leak, let’s move on”. Others will say “5% is a very high chance and it’s definitely an open case”.

What I still don’t quite get is why people are so invested in the particular answer. Why did this search for the origins of SARS-CoV-2 break down exactly along ID vs evolution lines? It seems like this question is very socio-political for some reason that still baffles me if I really think about it. Maybe I’m wrong though and I have a false impression of who thinks the lab-leak scenario is likely or not-likely.

4 Likes
37

Don’t forget the other three combinations:

people claiming that SARS-CoV-2 was a human construct
and
people claiming that SARS-CoV-2 was a human construct and was deliberately released
and
people claiming that SARS-CoV-2 was a human construct and leaked out of a lab.

1 Like
38

Yes, it is a good questions that they should answer. I wonder why they haven’t.

Yes, including the researchers at WIV itself.

So they investigated it. They looked at the records of genomes of the viruses they investigated or had stored at the lab, and none was a close match for SARS-CoV-2.

I ask again: What further investigation is needed if one does not invoke some “off-the wall conspiracy theory” about the lab doing secret research on bat viruses that they have kept hidden?

1 Like
39

My thoughts exactly. It is entirely prudent to investigate the possibility of a lab leak when there happens to be a lab that studies those same viruses in the region where the virus first emerged. It is similar to a husband being investigate after his wife is murdered.

2 Likes
40

There is a big difference. I think we all agree that the virus could have leaked out of the lab. However, when people start pushing misinformation and conspiracy theories to support the lab leak theory then it has gone too far.

About half of the US believes the virus leaked out of the Wuhan lab. This isn’t 50% think there should be an investigation, but 50% who think it did leak out of the lab. That’s what we are dealing with.

3 Likes