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 -
If millions of people died because research into preventing a pandemic created the conditions for starting one, that is the most important lesson we could learn from covid. Getting the answer right, one way or the other, is the only way to prevent this all from happening again.
6 replies 5 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
I'm not asking anyone to believe the evidence we have right now is adequate. But I wish commentators like Rather would stop conditioning their beliefs on the consequences of one answer or the other being right, and stop attacking the question itself as somehow harmful.
5 replies 6 retweets 37 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Pinboard
The problem I see is that process has itself been perverted in the political realm, via “I’m only asking questions!” as a disingenuous way to make claims or to obstruct. So when someone like Stewart or Rather engages in this, it’s loaded in a way actual scientific inquiry is not.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
This attack on questions that lead somewhere you don't like as self-evidently in bad faith is one of the new social media dynamics I really dislike. It moves every discussion from substance to intent—this person is asking for a bad reason, so we should not engage them.
-
-
There is a fine line here that gets tough. Asking questions about a novel virus should be done by all. Asking questions about principles long before established and at times fought for and spilled blood over is where this gets tricky.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
'Whats the problem with my confederate flag?' are the types of questions I am done with forever.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.