Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists • Hacker News Board

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#231

Post by regular_trash » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 12:33 AM UTC

dbsmith83 wrote: post #224

ke88y wrote: post #10

Big question: HOW? Most journalists in the USA receive basically zero scientific education. At university I majored in two STEM subjects but also took 10 courses in Philosophy, Art, History, Journalism, and Economics. Almost no one majoring in any of those fields except Econ took more than 2-3 STEM courses, and even then there a dedicated watered down courses to ensure those people could graduate (Algebra instead of…

Thinking out loud here and this might be a terrible idea, and maybe at the risk of snubbing journalism majors, but what if the dependency was inverted? As in, what if, instead of having journalists who take a few classes here and there in various subjects, we instead had people who majored in subjects who also took some journalism classes, so they could write on subjects within the field? What I mean is, instead of h…

You basically described Hamilton Morris from Vice. He does a great job at covering psychoactive substances. Although he does at times seem to be an active proponent instead of giving an unbiased perspective.

Regardless, it's refreshing to hear qualified people give their opinion and reportings on things than it is to listen to those that don't understand what they are commenting on.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#232

Post by stubybubs » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 12:46 AM UTC

COGlory wrote: post #219

stubybubs wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible. More scie…

>Historically, a zoonitic origin is extremely likely. Historically, there have been far, far more documented lab leaks of SARS-CoV than there have been animal-human jumps. People that wish to shutdown lab leak conversation are quick to mix in engineering. Lots of less educated people can't tell the difference. It is very possible that the virus was both zoonotic in origin, and leaked from the lab.

My point is that we don't have any documented anything for the first couple hundred thousand of years of humanity's existence, and we encountered the most horrific viral and bacterial infections, many of which caused unthinkable mass deaths. They were so awful we attributed them to God(s) as punishment for our bad behavior. None of them have documented microbiological origins. Some would have some from spontaneous mutation in humans and many would have come from animals. They are de facto not lab leaks, so the fact that we have some lab leaks documented in the last few decades isn't really convincing. There is nothing there that makes a zoonotic origin less likely.

Here's a scientist who said we couldn't dismiss the lab leak, and asked for more research, which he did.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/07/19/1016005...

The early cases are clustered around the market. I know the market and the lab are "close" on a global scale, but the details matter. They are 30km apart, about a 45 minute drive in traffic. Looks about as clear as John Snow's map of cholera outbreaks in London.

That article is from 2021, but he stands by it in 2023:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-03-08/covid-lab-l...

"What is the chance that a big Chinese city like Wuhan would have a lab doing the kind of research that has come under suspicion? The answer is, the vast majority of the biggest cities in China have labs involved in such research. If COVID had emerged in, say, Beijing, there would be no fewer than four such labs facing suspicion."

Edit:

2 things.

It's important to rule out that the idea that this could only be engineered, which would imply a definite lab origin. That is why engineered viruses come up. A non-lab leak is certainly plausible, and a lab leak is not ruled out.

There are labs all over China, there are markets all over China. The overlap of cities having both is significant. Viruses appear in larger, denser population centers. The "next thing" was very likely to appear in a city with a lab. The thing is, it's not very close to the lab. There's a large cluster around the market.

Lab theory doesn't have much going for it. It's not actually that close to the epicenter. There are labs everywhere. SARS is widely studies.

Sure some viruses have long incubation periods, but that would show as far less of a tight cluster around the market. Your hypothesis seems to be that it spread from lab distantly because of incubation time, then stopped spreading distantly once it reached the market? That does not make sense.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#233

Post by wredue » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 12:48 AM UTC

rossdavidh wrote: post #98

wredue wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m really not sure what you mean. There is literally zero evidence supporting a lab leak, while there’s multitudes of evidence of multiple contact leaps in the market. Was there a time when the lab leak theory had the same credibility as it being naturally occurring in poor unsanitary market conditions? I’d personally say no, but for the sake of argument, forgetting basic tenants like “the simplest explanation is mo…

This sounds like "your theory is outside the Overton window, you are not allowed to think this". The simplest version of the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy, it is very literally the opposite: "never ascribe to conspiracy what is adequately explained by incompetence". We had warnings, in writing, about the very lab in question, from western scientists, that the safety standards there were insufficient.

No. There is evidence to support that it naturally occurred through contact tracing due to the large clustered concentration of outbreak within the confines of the market.

There is no evidence to support a lab leak.

This is not “your theory is outside the Overton window”. It is you attempting to shift the Overton window intentionally.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#234

Post by ctrlp » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 1:01 AM UTC

coeneedell wrote: post #162

ctrlp wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

This line in the tractatus is not about the individual’s knowledge it’s about the entire research programme’s ability to know something fundamentally unknowable. In particular Wittgenstein was referring to logical philosophers talking about metaphysics, which evades logical positivism. Even then he wasn’t against the practice of metaphysics, only the attempt to describe it with hard logic.

Yes, I'm aware. I'm making an analogy to the entire project of journalism. Do you want to argue the point?

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#235

Post by rustedspoon » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 1:13 AM UTC

This is not possible in my opinion, even if they are knowledgeable, skeptical, ask every right question. Everyone including journalists are career oriented and if you want to progress in career you need to write articles a certain way which will include bias

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#236

Post by jonnycomputer » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 1:26 AM UTC

ayjchan wrote: post #230

ayjchan wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lead author of Proximal Origin wrote this in slack on April 17, a month after the letter had been published in Nature Medicine: "Okay, so about the current news. Is there any reason to believe that they might be onto something, or is it all smoke and mirrors? Eddie Holmes - any insights on the China side? The main things from my perspective: 1. Bioweapon and engineered totally off the table 2. If there is no engi…

Also, in the accompanying press release from Scripps, Kristian Andersen says: “These two features of the virus, the mutations in the RBD portion of the spike protein and its distinct backbone, rules out laboratory manipulation as a potential origin for SARS-CoV-2.” https://www.scripps.edu/news-and-events/press-room/2020/2020... There's no hedging there and it's a press release, meaning it's targeted toward journalist…

ruling out laboratory manipulation != ruling out the virus escaping from a lab.

lab manipulation = bio-engineered; the authors clearly distinguish those two things.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#237

Post by peteradio » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 1:33 AM UTC

dbsmith83 wrote: post #224

ke88y wrote: post #10

Big question: HOW? Most journalists in the USA receive basically zero scientific education. At university I majored in two STEM subjects but also took 10 courses in Philosophy, Art, History, Journalism, and Economics. Almost no one majoring in any of those fields except Econ took more than 2-3 STEM courses, and even then there a dedicated watered down courses to ensure those people could graduate (Algebra instead of…

Thinking out loud here and this might be a terrible idea, and maybe at the risk of snubbing journalism majors, but what if the dependency was inverted? As in, what if, instead of having journalists who take a few classes here and there in various subjects, we instead had people who majored in subjects who also took some journalism classes, so they could write on subjects within the field? What I mean is, instead of h…

Alternatively leverage LLM and feed the papers to the LLM, massage for impact, tweak for demographics and print and publish my dude

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#238

Post by tomhoward » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 1:40 AM UTC

A few years ago I started undertaking practices to let go of emotional attachments, which I discovered after a lengthy and difficult period trying to figure out how to overcome some major life challenges.

I’ve been doing these practices consistently now for about 11 years. Even after all that time, I’m not at all free of emotional attachments; I’m working through some very deep career-related ones right now. But that’s by the by.

One of the things you start to learn when you spend enough time doing this work is that people’s emotional attachments are way more powerful than people’s ability to reason and see logic.

One you see it, you can’t unsee it. I now notice it all the time, in journalism, on Twitter, on podcasts, here on HN, and anywhere contentious topics are being discussed, people who are regarded as being as “rational” and “scientific” in their worldview will routinely argue positions that are logically absurd but they won’t be able to see it, due to their emotional attachment to the conclusion. And often their interviewer or debating parter – even if they’re somewhat in opposition – won’t notice and call them out on it because they have the same attachment to the position.

I’ve come to believe that science and logic really doesn’t hold much sway in society at all; we have positions/conclusions that are largely predetermined via people’s egos and emotional attachments, then scientific data is cherry-picked to form a "rationalisation" that feels just valid enough to pass under people's radar.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#239

Post by ecf » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 1:44 AM UTC

ke88y wrote: post #10

Big question: HOW? Most journalists in the USA receive basically zero scientific education. At university I majored in two STEM subjects but also took 10 courses in Philosophy, Art, History, Journalism, and Economics. Almost no one majoring in any of those fields except Econ took more than 2-3 STEM courses, and even then there a dedicated watered down courses to ensure those people could graduate (Algebra instead of…

STEM students need to be heavily incentivized. When the world goes to shit I can guarantee the journalism majors aren’t going to be solving our global warming crisis. I mean, they’re already failing their one job of spreading awareness.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#240

Post by ayjchan » Sat, Jul 22, 2023, 1:48 AM UTC

jonnycomputer wrote: post #236

ayjchan wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, in the accompanying press release from Scripps, Kristian Andersen says: “These two features of the virus, the mutations in the RBD portion of the spike protein and its distinct backbone, rules out laboratory manipulation as a potential origin for SARS-CoV-2.” https://www.scripps.edu/news-and-events/press-room/2020/2020... There's no hedging there and it's a press release, meaning it's targeted toward journalist…

ruling out laboratory manipulation != ruling out the virus escaping from a lab. lab manipulation = bio-engineered; the authors clearly distinguish those two things.

In that April slack conversation, the lead author expressed strong, persistent concern about a lab cultured virus that had adapted and become pandemic-ready through that process. Lab culturing = lab manipulation.

Authors have taken their names off papers for much less.