D&D and the rising pandemic

[Maxperson]

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.

I'm not suggesting we question everything we think we already know. In THIS circumstance, there is significant circumstantial evidence that casts enough doubt on the natural origin theory to challenge it and require that we spend the effort to look at the research facility with much more scrutiny and to look for evidence of it being from the wild.

We can't just assume that it's from the wild.

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.

I disagree, at least in part. I'm sure there are many who want to find blame. Others just want to know where and how it originated. While it may increase international tensions if it is proven to be from the research facility, that's not reason enough to ignore the possibility that it came from there.

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.

I agree. I'm just saying that 1) it's not some crackpot conspiracy theory to think that the research facility could have been responsible, and 2) That we should be looking hard at both nature and the facility as possible sources.

 

[Ryujin]

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

Then why would natural production be the default, ongoing, if it was not? I'm sorry, but your argument holds no water.

 

[Imaculata]

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?

That is literally the Sherlock Holmes fallacy.

 

[J.Quondam]

The most vexing thing about this particular case is that the Chinese government will not be forthcoming in any investigations into covid's origins. So no matter what actual scientists determine, that government's intransigence alone will leave the door open to any supposed "reasonable doubt" on the issue. And so it will never be "sufficiently" resolved for conspiracy theorists speculationists.

Not that it ever is for those predisposed to such thinking, of course.

 

[Maxperson]

That is literally the Sherlock Holmes fallacy.

And that's the Fallacy Fallacy. So what. Can you answer the question?

Edit. The irony here is that you are the one committing the Holmesian Fallacy, not me. The Holmesian Fallacy says, "When some explanation is believed to be true on the basis that alternate explanations are impossible, yet not all alternate explanations have been ruled out."

I'm saying that there is circumstantial evidence that shows that we should look at the research facility closer, not that it's true that it came from the research facility. I'm literally NOT ruling out anything or declaring either of them impossible. You on the other hand are declaring the possibility of the research facility being the origin a conspiracy theory(ruling it out as impossible) and saying that the natural theory is true.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think anyone's ruling out that the virus escaped from a lab or was man made.

But there's no definitive proof either. On any of the three main ideas (natural, manmade, natural but lab leak).

Natural is the leading contender atm.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think anyone's ruling out that the virus escaped from a lab or was man made.

But there's no definitive proof either. On any of the three main ideas (natural, manmade, natural but lab leak).

Natural is the leading contender atm.

Maybe. If that study I linked is true, then natural would be behind lab leak. Of course studies are often flawed and the research would need to be verified/duplicated before I would trust it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Maybe. If that study I linked is true, then natural would be behind lab leak. Of course studies are often flawed and the research would need to be verified/duplicated before I would trust it.

There's multiple studies though. Is it plausible yes but beyond that.

 

[Eltab]

A Court will look at the following kinds of evidence:
Eyewitness
Documentary
Corroborating - third party sources that buttress individual facts from the above
Scientific - third party work that independently draws the same conclusions as the eyewitnesses and documents
Rebuttal - on what basis can we claim "that's not right"?
Profile - this individual has the attributes of the person who could do it
Fingerprint - not always literal, this person and only this person did it
Body / Missing Body - items that must exist for the charge to be true and have been (or have not been) produced
Circumstantial - additional supporting facts

The evidence in a case leads to an objective truth: the answer to the question "What happened? ".

P.S. Of note in the context of an Internet forum, "Shoot the messenger" is not a form of evidence.

 

[Umbran]

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.

So, let us look at this, with critical thinking engaged:

"Nikolai Petrovsky, the lead researcher, said his team suspects human manipulation in Wuhan because of the unmatched ability of the virus’ protruding spike to infect human cells."

So, by description the study says, "this virus is too good at infecting humans to be natural." I've perused the preprint on arXiv, and that's about the depth of the argument. The abstract of the paper, in which you are supposed to give the basic conclusions, doesn't say, "so this is probably manmade". It says, in effect, "this virus is surprisingly well-adapted to humans." No statement of artificial origin even appears in the abstract!

The conclusion of the paper is basically, "We don't know how this happened" and so they posit that it may have been done in the laboratory. The paper does not actually present any specific evidence that it was made in a lab - they merely speculate that it is a possibility that should be looked into.

So, I'm sorry, but for purposes of this discussion, the paper is merely an opinion.