The Lab Leak Hypothesis • Hacker News Board

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#71

Post by arduanika » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 3:26 AM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #61

Also an MIT alum, and in July I was considering the bayesian priors of the situation: Roll a dice representing all the possible bat-human interaction sites in the world. How often do you get a result so incredibly close to one of the few sites in the world that intentionally collects these things? I have worked in clean room environments for years. Everyone eventually has an off day (lack of sleep, usually) where you…

Apparently you're being downvoted for pointing out that scientists are human. I am so sorry this is happening to you.

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#72

Post by noetic_techy » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 3:27 AM UTC

I would implore those who are skeptical of a lab leak hypothesis to listen to the evolutionary biologist Bret Weinsteins Darkhorse Podcast with Yuri Deigin on the subject:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bret-weinstein-and-yur...

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#73

Post by noetic_techy » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 3:30 AM UTC

MilnerRoute wrote: post #21

I'd like to ask everyone commenting on this article: who wrote it? Seriously -- what do you know about the author of these words? (There's no "author's bio" anywhere on the page, or even if you click on his name.) So what do any of us know about him? If you look him up on Wikipedia, it lists his occupation as novelist and fiction writer, as well as an "essayist." ("His fiction generally de-emphasizes narrative in fav…

Your comment is merely an ad hominem against the author, not the content.

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#74

Post by noetic_techy » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 3:33 AM UTC

mabbo wrote: post #27

> There is no direct evidence for these zoonotic possibilities, just as there is no direct evidence for an experimental mishap But there is so much more opportunity for the zoonotic possibilities. In fact, this is the seventh time we've seen Betacoronavirus cross from bats, through another animal, and then into humans. SARS came via palm civets. MERS came via camels. Four more types cause a mild cold only and so they…

Yes but the jumps typically flame out. This virus has an extremely well adapted human furin site well outside of typical Bat Corona virus. This is more in line with gain of function research.

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#75

Post by et2o » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 3:44 AM UTC

127 wrote: post #39

et2o wrote: post #18

This article is a masterpiece of disinformation.

Which always makes me incredulous why nobody ever breaks these down piece by piece if it's so obvious. Education is much more effective than proof by repeated assertions.

Because it’s an extremely long article and it’s a lot of work for me to do for no reward.

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#76

Post by arduanika » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 3:46 AM UTC

MilnerRoute wrote: post #22

MilnerRoute wrote: post #21

I'd like to ask everyone commenting on this article: who wrote it? Seriously -- what do you know about the author of these words? (There's no "author's bio" anywhere on the page, or even if you click on his name.) So what do any of us know about him? If you look him up on Wikipedia, it lists his occupation as novelist and fiction writer, as well as an "essayist." ("His fiction generally de-emphasizes narrative in fav…

My favorite part of the article is where he says "there is no direct evidence for an experimental mishap..." Followed a few words later by the word "Nevertheless..."

A stark contrast with all the direct evidence for zoonotic origins?

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#77

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 4:17 AM UTC

arduanika wrote: post #76

MilnerRoute wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite part of the article is where he says "there is no direct evidence for an experimental mishap..." Followed a few words later by the word "Nevertheless..."

A stark contrast with all the direct evidence for zoonotic origins?

[deleted]

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#78

Post by baryphonic » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 4:19 AM UTC

anon9001 wrote: post #45

MilnerRoute wrote: post #21

I'd like to ask everyone commenting on this article: who wrote it? Seriously -- what do you know about the author of these words? (There's no "author's bio" anywhere on the page, or even if you click on his name.) So what do any of us know about him? If you look him up on Wikipedia, it lists his occupation as novelist and fiction writer, as well as an "essayist." ("His fiction generally de-emphasizes narrative in fav…

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm not going to read the article. This long-form stuff is particularly sticky. If the story is told well, you're likely going to remember it as true (or at least credible) even the story wasn't credible in the first place.

The truth of a story does not depend on the credibility of its narrator. To assert otherwise is the definition of ad hominem.

Claims asserted may nonetheless be untrue or may not be as strong as claimed. But that requires careful, critical examination.

I'm perplexed by this reaction, as if reading something with a critical eye is impossible. Or, worse, that reading something by someone without a particular status or pedigree might become as infectious as SARS-2 itself and turn us into zombies or something.

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#79

Post by mardifoufs » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 4:21 AM UTC

MilnerRoute wrote: post #21

I'd like to ask everyone commenting on this article: who wrote it? Seriously -- what do you know about the author of these words? (There's no "author's bio" anywhere on the page, or even if you click on his name.) So what do any of us know about him? If you look him up on Wikipedia, it lists his occupation as novelist and fiction writer, as well as an "essayist." ("His fiction generally de-emphasizes narrative in fav…

I mean that's what investigative journalism is. Do you only read political pieces written by political scientists? Or articles on accidents & disasters from experts in those fields? The author cited experts & scientists, asked them questions and well... investigated?

I just don't see how that's problematic, and while I don't usually think that appeals to authority are fallacious, suggesting that only scientists should be listened to regardless of the arguments presented by the author is a perfect example of a fallacious appeal to authoritity imo. Especially when the author presents quite a few scientific sources to support his claims.

You can obviously argue that those sources are not valid, which is obviously possible and even likely, but we should focus on attacking the argument not the person presenting it, seemingly in good faith.

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#80

Post by csense » Tue, Jan 05, 2021, 4:35 AM UTC

Back in March or so, I wrote a comment about this [1], citing some even earlier (January 2020-ish) HN commentary.

My conclusion: Lab leak's not inconsistent with the evidence, but there's no smoking gun.

China's behavior is highly suggestive of guilt -- the moving location on Google Maps, destroying records, and not permitting any outside investigation.

However, China could actually be completely innocent and just doing things that make them look guilty, because "we need to do something to get people to stop talking about this" may be a strong motive of their government.

For the record, personally I'm a little cheesed off that our politicians aren't making a bigger deal out of this. (E.g. give China a binary choice: Pick one, either (a) provide us a complete explanation of why you did the things that make you look guilty and let us see some evidence to back up that explanation, or (b) we'll assume it was negligence, and try to recover the costs of the virus by putting a ton of tariffs on your goods.) I don't even think Trump's said the words "Chinese virus" for months.

But who knows, maybe world powers have some secret agreements about how to handle bioweapon accidents? Maybe China's people and our people got together back in March or April, they privately admitted it was an accident and privately made some concessions, on the condition we don't publicly blame them, keep everything they said super classified for at least 70 years, and they don't publicly criticize US bioweapons programs if we don't criticize theirs? I'm just guessing here, but it seems plausible.

The one new argument I've heard only today is the argument "But how did it get all the way from where wild bats are to Wuhan?" (From two different sources, OP is one of them, I believe the other one was from CBS News on Youtube.)

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22805043