zlacker

>>Flatci+(OP)
So they all signed a letter stating they were political actors and jokes of scientists and now have second thoughts. Too bad.

>>mesozo+FP
This is exactly how science is supposed to work. People learn some new things and they update their opinions based on that new data. That's a good thing.

The idea that people aren't allowed 'second thoughts' is probably the worst thing to happen to general discourse.

>>someth+6s1
They updated their opinion from "no" to yes" it is possible it was a lab leak. That's complete change of mind; first they said "We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin" and now they are saying something like "ok maybe it is possible." I mean c'mon are they updating their mind according to Microsoft Patch Tuesday schedule?!

>>mrkram+Gw1
Why are people not allowed a complete change of mind? If I have an opinion, but then find evidence that totally contradicts my prior opinion, surely I should be allowed a 'complete' change of mind?

If we're only ever allowed to change our minds by a little bit we'd all be struck in the neighbourhood of whatever (silly) opinions we had as five year olds.

Also, who's in charge of deciding what constitutes a 'complete' mind change vs the apparently-ok minor mind change?

>>someth+Ny1
You can’t stay on a high horse like that if your opinion is that some other opinion is a dumb, ridiculous conspiracy theory and then you change your opinion to that theory.

If you want a fair discussion of theories you can’t label the other one a conspiracy theory.

>>tinus_+lz1
I agree that using the phrase 'conspiracy theory' in the original Lancet letter was too much. And I'm totally fine with people taking issue with that. And, in hindsight, they really should've waited for more information before forming and strongly expressing such an opinion. They're definitely not free from blame. But I still think people should be able to change their mind by any amount based on new information. Why would you possibly argue that people should have to stick with ideas they no longer believe in just because they previously argued against them?

So, should they be able to change their mind? Sure. Should they be less dismissive of opposing views? Also yes. There's no contradiction there.