D&D and the rising pandemic

[Imaculata]

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."

No, I quoted you. You said, do you have any other explanation? That's the Sherlock Holmes fallacy.

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

A famous quote, and also a famous error in thinking. The idea that 'it must be this thing', because I've ruled out every other thing I could think of.

Imagine a murder at a mansion, where everyone but the butler has an alibi and could not have commited the murder. Does that mean the butler did it? No, of course not. You still need actual evidence to prove that he did it, plus a motive and a murder weapon. Plus more importantly, you haven't ruled out the unknown. It could have been the gardener, who wasn't on the list of suspects. It could even have been the dog, however improbable.

The case for the lab origin is worse than that though. You have no evidence, just conjecture, and you haven't ruled out any of the other possible causes, including the most likely one: natural. Nor have you ruled out unknown causes. You have at best a weak motive. Yes, I don't trust the Chinese government either. They certainly would be willing to do something like this and lie about it. But you need a lot more than that to make it a more likely answer than the natural origin explanation. Evidence, for a start.

Pointing at 'a' Corona lab and saying it was somewhere in the same gigantic province as the Covid 19 outbreak, is not evidence.

 

[Maxperson]

No, I quoted you. You said, do you have any other explanation? That's the Sherlock Holmes fallacy.

No it isn't. I'm asking for possibilities, not truths. YOU are the only one using that fallacy here.

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Yep! I've eliminated nothing. You on the other hand have eliminated(incorrectly) the research facility by labeling it a conspiracy theory.

The case for the lab origin is worse than that though. You have no evidence, just conjecture, and you haven't ruled out any of the other possible causes, including the most likely one: natural. Nor have you ruled out unknown causes. You have at best a weak motive. Yes, I don't trust the Chinese government either. They certainly would be willing to do something like this and lie about it. But you need a lot more than that to make it a more likely answer than the natural origin explanation. Evidence, for a start.

Once again, there is in fact evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

 

[CleverNickName]

Once again, there is in fact evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

 

[Imaculata]

Yep! I've eliminated nothing. You on the other hand have eliminated(incorrectly) the research facility by labeling it a conspiracy theory.

I have dismissed it until there is actual evidence supporting it. Until that time, there is no reason to give it any thought.

Do you have actual evidence?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Clarification: circumstantial evidence IS evidence. There are murder convictions that have been won entirely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. But you need a LOT of it to do so.

The circumstantial evidence for C19 being bioengineered in the Wuhan lab is so poor as to be virtually nonexistent.

The circumstantial evidence for C19 being natural but accidentally released from the Wuhan lab is stronger, given the lab’s actual track record with other viruses. But it’s still pretty weak overall, given that none of the other lab accidents in Wuhan* resulted in the exposures of more than a handful of people- an indication that they generally take effective action when an accidental exposure occurs. It would be extremely unusual for an exposure to be dealt with so poorly that it resulted in a global pandemic.

And so, as they say, an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. So far, that’s lacking.






* this lab has prior experience handling SARS, MERS, and other coronaviruses, so it isn’t like COVID would be completely alien to them. They knew very well what they were dealing with.

 

[Ryujin]

No it isn't. I'm asking for possibilities, not truths. YOU are the only one using that fallacy here.

Yep! I've eliminated nothing. You on the other hand have eliminated(incorrectly) the research facility by labeling it a conspiracy theory.

Once again, there is in fact evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is what makes my clients think that I killed their network connection. Because I walked past the network riser. In and of itself, it's pretty meaningless.

 

[Maxperson]

Clarification: circumstantial evidence IS evidence. There are murder convictions that have been won entirely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. But you need a LOT of it to do so.

The circumstantial evidence for C19 being bioengineered in the Wuhan lab is so poor as to be virtually nonexistent.

The circumstantial evidence for C19 being natural but accidentally released from the Wuhan lab is stronger, given the lab’s actual track record with other viruses. But it’s still pretty weak overall, given that none of the other lab accidents in Wuhan* resulted in the exposures of more than a handful of people- an indication that they generally take effective action when an accidental exposure occurs. It would be extremely unusual for an exposure to be dealt with so poorly that it resulted in a global pandemic.

Right. I'm not arguing that it came from the research facility. I'm arguing that right now there's enough circumstantial evidence that it warrants a good investigation into the facility, not dismissal like @Imaculata is doing. Not that either one of us would be doing the investigating, but it's certainly not a conspiracy theory to recognize the very valid possibility that it came from the lab.

 

[Maxperson]

Circumstantial evidence is what makes my clients think that I killed their network connection. Because I walked past the network riser. In and of itself, it's pretty meaningless.

See the post by Dannyalcatraz. It was a good one. People get convicted of everything up to and including murder based on nothing but circumstantial evidence.

 

[Ryujin]

See the post by Dannyalcatraz. It was a good one. People get convicted of everything up to and including murder based on nothing but circumstantial evidence.

Sure they do. When it's overwhelming.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure they do. When it's overwhelming.

And before that, they investigate based on less. That's how they find the rest................or not if it doesn't exist, but they don't know until they do the in depth investigation.