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
These scientists didn't believe X, and later change their minds to believe Y based on new evidence—they believed X, vocally smeared everyone who dared to believe Y as liars and cranks, and later changed their minds to believe Y based on new evidence.

Updating opinions based on evidence is good. Insulting and slandering people because they have different opinions is bad.

>>George+au1
I haven't followed every scientist in that list so I have no idea how much any one of them might or might not have actively and aggressively smeared people. If that's the case, then obviously, that's awful. But they're still allowed to change their mind, and OP's comment seemed to take primary issue with the mind-changing. (That could be me mis-interpreting though.)

Edit: I've definitely seen people on Twitter and people in the media be overzealous when denying the lab-leak theory; but that's not the same as the scientists themselves doing it (which again, I don't know about either way).

>>someth+fx1
> OP's comment seemed to take primary issue with the mind-changing. I think the OP was more accurate than you (or even they) thought.

Scientists confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence (i.e. "we don't have evidence of lab leaks, so anyone claiming it's a lab leak is definitely wrong") -> joke of a scientist

Scientists making a statement not from scientific evidence but due to political expediency (see sibling post, i.e. "conspiracy theories are making China unhappy and they might not share data with us") -> political actors