zlacker

>>nnx+(OP)
It's interesting to see that with Donald Trump out of office, the "lab escape" hypothesis is not roundly dismissed as a right-wing conspiracy theory anymore.

>>incrud+I2
It's almost as if the motivation for a claim matters.

>>Touche+D3
So, if a claim is made, but the person who claims it has bad intentions, it can be dismissed?

I believe there's a logical fallacy for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

>>incrud+S3
We don't know if it's true, there's still no evidence even today.

Motivation affects how we react to a theory with no evidence, when coming from Tom Cotton vs. a former CDC director.

Btw, Tom Cotton's claim was that it was a government biochemical weapon's lab, that's not Redfield's theory.

>>Touche+94
> We don't know if it's true, there's still no evidence even today.

I have edited my comment to reflect that.

> Motivation affects how we react to a theory with no evidence, when coming from Tom Cotton vs. a former CDC director.

There's another fallacy for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

>>incrud+t4
I took logic in college too. I didn't say that motivation affects whether something is true or not, just how much skepticism we apply to it. It's perfectly normal and good that we believe things experts say (when we ourselves do not have expertise) over a guy shouting on a street corner.