Many people have, and you don’t seem to be upset by their behavior.
That is the specificity I should expect from a scientist? Or just scientists of your prejudices?
I don’t usually get upset about things I don’t know happened. Are you referring to anything that has gone on here?
I do think that my (what I think are numerous) endorsement(s) of Jordan’s comment should indicate that I don’t share the view that anyone is proven to be guilty of
Please, don’t forget to show me where someone here has,
What’s the point of this thread?
1 Like
How about this as an answer,
You seem to have a warped idea of how science works.
You really don’t know that many people are accusing the Chinese of constructing the virus and/or allowing/deliberately releasing it out of the lab and covering it up?
@Giltil is on the edge of that.
Did I accuse you personally of sharing the view, Sam?
1 Like
Key tags or sentences: Wuhan Institute of Virology, earliest cluster of cases at Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan (although there is some evidence the virus was already circulating earlier on), Chinese government not being transparent enough, politics, need to beef up wild life sampling to identify potential emerging pathogens if a zoonosis caused the outbreak, need to tighten lab biosafety measures to drastically reduce the possibility of lab leaks in the future if a lab leak caused the outbreak.
1 Like
Haha, that’s funny. So science isn’t specific? One can lack specificity all the while doing good science? I’m busting a gut.
How about giving the full context? My comment that, “I don’t usually get upset about things I don’t know happened.” is specifically limited to what has been said here on this ‘thread’ (is that the right name for this?) The thing that I don’t know happened is that someone on this thread has accused,
Specificity again. Can’t you show his accusation or where you consider him to be ‘on the edge of that’?
Is this being too demanding? Good grief. Please just show what you have in mind.
I’m not sure of what ‘specifically’ your are asking me. I am ‘accusing’ you of saying this,
Sure. That sounds good to me.
For anyone inclined to think that viral lab leaks can’t happen in the West, this book (basically true with a bit of dramatization) is a great read. While this was happening, I was cluelessly driving by the USAMRIID building every day to and from my postdoc at the National Cancer Institute, which occupies a corner of Ft. Detrick.
2 Likes
Oh, and I want to point this out too.
Is one equal to many in your vocabulary?
And someone might wonder why I (and others) don’t take your word (and others) on things that I myself (we) don’t understand.
Am I right to guess that you don’t put a lot of stock in what the bible has to say?
Does this verse strike you as conveying a certain truth?,
One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much.
There is a whole thread for that. Gil shared an article composed by Nicholas Wade arguing for a lab leak and as it turned out, there were massive holes in his arguments.
1 Like
Here you go:
1 Like
One on this forum, many in the world.
I have never urged you, or anyone else, to take my word on any scientific matter. I’d urge you to delve into the evidence.
Wrong again, but that’s predictable.
Indeed. I am struck by the fact that the creationists who claim to be ardently upholding the Bible almost inevitably resort to bearing false witness–not opinions, but about the directly observable evidence.
So at what point, precisely, are you accusing me of being dishonest, Sam?
1 Like
I think you might need to be very careful with this. I both agree and disagree with a lot of what @Faizal_Ali has said on this thread, it doesn’t mean I have to point out every occurrence of agreement and disagreement. My guess is that, most people on Peaceful Science have probably written off this thread by now. When discussing topics like the ones that often come up on PS (which are mostly just offered up by those who chose to participate), there are often “camps” and so yes, it can often become a partisan affair. The goal behind Peaceful Science is not to whitewash or sweep under the rug that people disagree, it’s not “cheap” peace. I would say the goals are to find ways to build trust between people who come from different backgrounds and perspectives, to pursue honest science with integrity, and to find ways to understand and be understood when it comes to the big questions.
This question was pointed in both directions, but honestly more towards the lab leak proponents who seem to, despite the lack of conclusive evidence that a lab leak occurred, doggedly press on that the “other side” isn’t taking the lab-leak scenario more seriously. I am not saying that finding out what actually happened isn’t important. I do think, especially in light of the death toll and incalculable damage caused by the pandemic, that we need to find answers as to what happened. My point was that I feel like, on paper at least, I think everyone here agrees that a lab leak was a possible scenario that should be investigated. I haven’t seen anybody disagree with that. But then people seem to get unhinged over proving one answer right. I don’t think it hurts to have some uncertainty or to have a “working hypothesis while we wait for better evidence” attitude.
So to be more clear and put my cards out on the table, this is how I’m thinking about the whole SARS-CoV-2 origins question. First, I see 5 possibilities:
- completely natural, zoonotic origins. WIV not involved at all.
- completely natural, but originating at WIV due to frequent interactions with bats, etc. An accident.
- lab-created and accidentally leaked. WIV was working on something novel and it “escaped”. An accident.
- lab-created bioweapon and accidentally leaked. WIV was working on something nasty and it accidentally escaped.
- lab-created bioweapon intentionally deployed. China doing bad bad things.
Next I assign likelyhoods based on what I’ve read or know or otherwise have reasons to believe. When news first broke I think I would have assigned them as:
- Likely
- Likely
- Likely
- Somewhat unlikely
- Very unlikely
After the first genomic results came out that seems to show now obvious signs of being artificially created, I would have assigned:
- Very likely
- Likely
- Somewhat unlikely
- Somewhat unlikely
- Very unlikely
At this point in time, with the WHO reports, and lots of genomic data, I think I’d assign:
- Very likely
- Somewhat unlikely
- Unlikely
- Very unlikely
- Very unlikely
I think it could be helpful if @Sam and @Faizal_Ali did a similar assignment (you could make up your own “options” if mine are bad). This is the sort of thing I meant with “What I still don’t quite get is why people are so invested in a particular answer”. It seems like still a fairly open question to me, although as @Faizal_Ali’s excellent “parable” with his child showed, we also must consider at what point we simply say “we’ve done as much as we reasonable should and so we must accept what we got and move on”.
At this point I feel like there’s only so much the international community can do, without violating China’s sovereignty, to investigate what happened. I’m much more interested in the world knowing what the CCP may have done to cover up or obfuscate the WHO and other public health agencies from getting a clear picture of what was going on. If in the course of that investigation they reveal new information that indicates something funny was happening at WIV, then that could of course be cause for renewed investigation as to the nature of the viruses origins.
8 Likes
Hey Michael,
I’ve got to laugh at times when I see ‘likes’ applied to certain comments. What I wonder is the person liking exactly? 
Anyway, you are easily forgiven if you are unaware of what @Giltil is being on the edge of. It is hard work climbing through all of these comments. But what @Giltil is accused of being on the edge of is this
Were you unsure of the reference I was after? If not and @Giltil is somehow on the edge of accusing others of massive negligent homicide please be more specific. Could you please cut and paste the reference?
Thanks
I mostly ‘like’ posts that I think are well argued and informative. If I’m arguing a point with someone I often find a post or two to ‘like’ because they did such a great job of arguing their point/side. For me at least, it doesn’t necessarily mean endorsement or affirmation of their position. I also ‘like’ funny posts because I enjoy humor, especially when we can laugh at ourselves.
5 Likes
I don’t think I was born with mind-reading powers, so I don’t know how to answer your question.
For someone who has been hammering on being specific, it would be nice if you highlighted one of the comments I liked and maybe I could tell you why I liked it.
He is on the edge of falling into the large ocean of conspiracies about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Already he has fallen for the misinformation that hydroxychloroquine is a treatment for Covid-19, a claim that has been stabbed repeatedly by the best scientific evidence out there.
Did you read Wade’s article which Gil shared and was convinced by? If you did you would know why Gil is close to that edge.
Context is usually important, so here is the context of your comment,
It seems to me, at this juncture, that the most obvious person this comment was being directed to was me. I accuse you of being snarky to me and you respond with (your) snark to me being minor to what? I think it would be reasonable to assume it was me. Well no, apparently I’d be wrong. Well was it directed at ‘others’ here? No, apparently that is not what you meant either. Apparently now you are claiming to have been slightly (at the least) chastening me for not addressing the many people in the world that accuse other of massive negligent homicide.
Well, pardon me for not knowing that this was the case. Even now accepting your claim, can you suggest where I should maybe have slid this condemnation into the conversation. Where, by the way did you do so?
You have accused @Giltil (I will be careful here. These are your words not mine.)
And you expect me to go through the entire article to find something that I doubt exist? Why don’t you quote what you are referring to?
I’m wrong on a guess? Actually, if you read it carefully you’d see it wasn’t even a guess. I asked you if I would be right to guess such.
But let me give you that one. I’m glad you predicted right. Good on you. Pat on the back.
Let me make another guess. You think I’ve been wrong on every point I’ve attempted to make to you.
Did I? I can see that the quote does mention dishonesty. It also mentions faithfulness. My wish is that you’d take them together and see transparency as what I’d like to see. Your entire engagement on the accusing others of massive negligent homicide is certainly a muddled accusation that I’ve yet to see justified
Over a month ago.
Did it contain the words massive negligent homicide?
Just search for the word homicide in the article. Didn’t find it. Care to help.
Can we be clear that there has been a ‘lot of ink spilled’ since this claim was first made despite the seemingly modest request that such a provocative assertion
be justified.
That justification has taken a long time in coming, and it looks like it will have to be very much walked back before anything like a justification arrives. It appears no one here has made such an outlandish claim. That it has been made somewhere in the universe is possible. How is it relevant here except to slander?
It seems like there is not going to be any great way to exit this thread, so this will likely be my last response.
Why would it need to contain those particular words? Do you not know the distinction between negligent homicide and other homicides?
I would say from this that your position is close to Gil’s:
1 Like