D&D and the rising pandemic

[AnotherGuy]

Still doesn't prove anything though.

We just don't know so can't rule out or confirm anything and Best China's government is obscuring everything for that reason.

I didn't say it proves anything - I'm merely stating that studies (scientific data) exist which reflect the opposite of a naturally occurring virus.

 

[Zardnaar]

I didn't say it proves anything - I'm merely stating that studies (scientific data) exist which reflect the opposite of a naturally occurring virus.

Glorified speculation.

I'm not gonna care if someone says its possible as we can't rule it out.

But there's lots of plausible scenarios we can't rule out not helped by Best China government.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Glorified speculation.

I'm not gonna care if someone says its possible as we can't rule it out.

But there's lots of plausible scenarios we can't rule out not helped by Best China government.

Well that's nice of you Zardnaar dismissing a study by a Professor of Medicine, along with decades long titles, accomplishments and accolades under his belt including a history of developing vaccines, as glorified speculation.

Some of you below may find the below article interesting given the rather dismissive views we have clearly seen growing in the last year and a half.

Beijing's useful idiots - UnHerd

Science journals have encouraged and enforced a false Covid narrative

unherd.com

He also has an interesting and honest conversation on Discernable. I'm not familiar with the interviewer whom I'm speculating is an Australian podcaster. I'm only 20 minutes in so far.

 

[Zardnaar]

Well that's nice of you Zardnaar dismissing a study by a Professor of Medicine, along with decades long titles, accomplishments and accolades under his belt including a history of developing vaccines, to glorified speculation.

Did he confirm it? No.

There's other professionals with different opinions.

I'm not dismissing the possibility but there's multiple possibilities unless something has changed recently.

Has it been proved? No. Possible yes.

I'm well aware of Beijings useful idiots but it's beyond the topic and against the rules.

 

[Ryujin]

Science doesn't assume an answer the way a default does. By all means, question and test both possibilities.

Actually yes, it does. When you have an existing and well tested theory that explains something it then becomes the default, until something else can better explain it.

 

[Maxperson]

But that is not enough. You actually need to show evidence that the virus-from-a-lab hypothesis is true. That which is proposed without evidence, can be disregarded without evidence. Just because you've shown other roots of the virus to be unlikely, does not mean that you've provided evidence for what remains. This is also often referred to as the Sherlock Holmes fallacy.

Okay. First, you have scientific evidence that it's unlikely to be natural. Second, you at ground zero you have a coronavirus research facility. Third, circumstantial evidence is in fact evidence, so all of those things I mentioned before, including it being a coronavirus research facility is evidence. Just not direct evidence. Fourth, just because you have other extremely longshot possibilities, like another country planting the virus at that location, doesn't mean that it's reasonable to doubt that it came from the Wuhan facility.

Assuming the science in that study is accurate, do you have any other reasonable explanation other than the research facility to explain how the virus started there?

 

[Maxperson]

Actually yes, it does. When you have an existing and well tested theory that explains something it then becomes the default, until something else can better explain it.

No. If it becomes the assumed answer, nothing else will ever better explain it. You're always going to assume that you are already correct. Only by not assuming the answer do you continue to question the theory when new circumstances come up..............................like all the circumstantial evidence surrounding the Wuhan research facility. Since we have all this new evidence, the theory needs to be questioned for this pandemic to see if there is a better explanation.

 

[Ryujin]

No. If it becomes the assumed answer, nothing else will ever better explain it. You're always going to assume that you are already correct. Only by not assuming the answer do you continue to question the theory when new circumstances come up..............................like all the circumstantial evidence surrounding the Wuhan research facility. Since we have all this new evidence, the theory needs to be questioned for this pandemic to see if there is a better explanation.

If that was the case we would still assume that 'germs' were spontaneously generated in dirt.

 

[Maxperson]

If that was the case we would still assume that 'germs' were spontaneously generated in dirt.

It's only because of that being the case that we don't. Otherwise dirt would be the default for germ generation.

 

[Umbran]

No. If it becomes the assumed answer, nothing else will ever better explain it. You're always going to assume that you are already correct. Only by not assuming the answer do you continue to question the theory when new circumstances come up

Yeah, but it is okay (in fact, generally necessary) to do that until you have evidence or reason to do otherwise.

I mean, right now, there's this assumption that Covid-19 came from the wild. Some folks question that. Maybe they'll find evidence that it was from a lab, and that will become the assumption. By your logic we must spend effort questioning that, because "irrefutable proof" does not exist in the scientific world. Lather, rinse, repeat, and the investigation into where it came from never ends, because whatever the solution of the moment is assumed must be questioned.

Thus, this argument is not practical - it is an endless, unproductive loop. We cannot spend all our time questioning each and every thing we already think we know. At some point, we have to move on, and wait for a reason or evidence to question.

Since we have all this new evidence, the theory needs to be questioned for this pandemic to see if there is a better explanation.

The question of where it come from is primarily a quest for blame. Assigning blame will not lead to better health outcomes for the populace at this point. Assigning blame will not correct economic dislocations that have occurred - indeed, the search for blame can easily worsen economic impacts if it increases international tensions.

It took years after the original SARS crisis before they found the likely source of the virus. If we ever do find the source of SARS-COV-2, we should expect it to take similar amounts of time, no matter if it were natural or engineered.