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
If you're a prominent indivudal who takes to the public sphere to insist something must be absolutely true, without epistemic humility, then changing your mind afterwards makes you look like an unreliable hypocrite.