You have misunderstood my point.
Somehow you seem to think I’m advocating for the lab leak idea. I’m not. Can you point to where I’ve done so? If I have it has been inadvertent. I don’t much care about it. However, I am in a way,
And the evidence for that is right there in the Francis Collins’s email.
And, in fact I’m not even that fussed about that. What I’m really on about is how unscientific Peaceful Science is. This site or at least the people I’ve interacted with are rife with groupthink.
How is it that so few can break ranks and say that Collins email attempting to squash the GBD is anything akin to a display of scientific inquiry?
There is no one here that I’ve seen do that. Such behavior if done by someone with otherwise approved ideas gets a pass. I wish everyone, including Collins would admit what is clearly obvious.
Or the calling of those who even suggested the idea of lab leak racists and conspiracy theorist. I brought that up and surprise of surprise found some of the Peaceful Scientist in attempting to support it,
Someone was here bringing up ad hominem with apparently little idea of what constitutes one. But this is a classic one. But I’m sure to have that challenged with a lot of doublespeak.
Assume that someone is both a racist and conspiracy theorist, how does that form an argument against the lab leak theory?
And again, in a Haaretz online article dated, Jul 16, 2021,
“That theory, which until not long ago was identified with conspiracy theorists from the zany right, was censored for months by Facebook and Google.”
Is that consistent with scientific dialogue, or more with the Peaceful Scientists? I posted it and there is not a peep against such autocratic dictatorship of the discussion space.
You get the same dialogue fostering tripe from the Lancet of February 19, 2020. Again not a peep of disapproval from the Peaceful Scientists.
Then I’m informed (as if I wasn’t aware of it) that,
What am I supposed to do with that? Well, what I do with it is relish it. What it does is reveal the kind of argument one can expect from the Peaceful Science crowd if one hasn’t got the sense to get the party line and adopt the duckspeak.
So, I don’t care about the origin of the Covid virus. And I certainly don’t have the knowledge to engage in the science. I am interested in what I as a layman can expect in the way of transparency and in not being propagandistic. And I conclude very little in that way can be expected. It is pretty much the party line or the highway.
As Robert Redfield said the other day, the approach (of the Nature Journal) is antithetical to science,
It is no surprise that @swamidass had to concede the point of the foibles of this discussion board when in discussion with DI’s Gunter Bechly,
I feel bad for Josh. This is his baby and I believe he has done all he can to make this the best it can be. But Josh’s, “Like, you know we’re scientists, we really want to engage.” is something I see little evidence of.
Surprise me and acknowledge that the Collins example, the racist/conspiracy theory charge, the Facebook and Google censorship are in the words of Robert Redfield antithetical to science.