This piece by Dan Rather is a good example of the motivated reasoning that has poisoned the discussion over covid origins, and ironically a very unscientific approach. Whether science is under attack or not should have zero bearing on investigating how the pandemic started.https://twitter.com/DanRather/status/1406611921256828930 …
-
Show this thread
-
If the pandemic was iatrogenic, then Stewart is in fact completely correct that certain avenues of scientific research pose a major threat to humanity. And scientists are not neutral arbiters in that discussion, but have an enormous interest in the exculpatory answer being right.
2 replies 4 retweets 37 likesShow this thread -
The answer to the covid origins question will help us decide whether we should be building new coronavirus research labs or tearing them down. Whether this answer helps the opponents of science, or helps Trump, or upsets China, or destroys public confidence is irrelevant.
3 replies 5 retweets 35 likesShow this thread -
The circumstantial evidence Stewart points to is compelling. You have a novel coronavirus arise in the same city as one of three labs in the world that study these viruses, and nowhere near where we find related diseases in the wild. You have a lot of people trying to cover up.
3 replies 3 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
We know we're about 1/5 for iatrogenic pandemics in the 20th century; we know the base rate of lab accidents is high; we know this all happened in a surveillance society where any tracks leading to an alternate source would be retrospectively visible to the authorities.
5 replies 2 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
So Stewart is in fact applying scientific principles in his hypothesis—in this case Occam's Razor. Check out the novel virus lab down the street from the novel virus spreading event, he says, and don't let political or social considerations derail your inquiry. That's science.
3 replies 4 retweets 30 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Pinboard
Occam's Razor isn't actually a scientific principle. The relevant principle here is whether there is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis. So far there isn't any evidence one way or the other. It's fine to ask the question though!
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Occam's razor is absolutely a scientific principle, and calling the explanation that doesn't involve a lab leak the null hypothesis is begging the question.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.