zlacker

>>datafl+(OP)
If we apply Occam's razor [1] decision between "Wuhan, however, is home of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a leading world center for research on coronaviruses" and "Wuhan, there is a wet market where under certain conditions virus can jump from bat to monkey to person" is relatively straightforward

But then, we should probably also apply Hanlon's razor [2] "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

>>seymor+Jo
Nobody has spoken of malice. It could have been a simple case of one lab worker getting infected. That would count towards stupidity.

Rhetorically speaking, Hanlon's razor doesn't quite have the same weight as Occam's, if only because people tend to view behavior they don't understand as stupid. But I'll add another "razor": don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to self-interested.

>>tgv+Iq
Malice is a form of self-interest.

>>anonca+9s
I'd say it's a possible manifestation of self-interest, but that it isn't always self-interest. There are people that hurt others without any apparent self-interest. When it gets out of control, we call them sociopaths or psychopaths. But that's a minor point.

My point was more that the dichotomy stupidity vs. malice seems to imply that e.g. playing music, or having dinner is either stupid or bad. Many things get done out of self-interest without being malicious, or without malicious intent.