zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. yabone+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-12-30 21:06:53
I don't see any _new information_ here, it's all stuff we've known for months. To me, this is just a conspiracy theory wrapped up with 'probability charts'.

Unless I'm missing something, is there any non-circumstantial evidence that this is true? All I've seen for the past year(!) is "it's not a coincidence that these two things happened in the same place" - which isn't science.

replies(3): >>jMyles+01 >>petera+Y1 >>dash2+v3
2. jMyles+01[view] [source] 2020-12-30 21:13:01
>>yabone+(OP)
Circumstantial evidence is a part of some scientific analysis, especially as it edges up against forensic science.

It is part of divining what type of experiment or investigation is indicated to unearth direct evidence.

From the opinion piece in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences I linked elsewhere in this thread:

""" An investigative process should be transparent, collaborative, international, and, to the extent possible, devoid of political interest. Recent, productive scientific collaborations between the United States and China, for example, provide hope that such a process can be achieved. But the kind of effort required will need to expand far beyond what’s taken place so far, and nations other than the United States and China will need to be involved. Conflicts of interest by researchers, administrators, and policymakers on all sides must be revealed and addressed, and all relevant global constituencies must be included. """

3. petera+Y1[view] [source] 2020-12-30 21:18:49
>>yabone+(OP)
Its pretty irritating to me that any theory of conspiracy must outright be rejected in the english language because "Conspiracy Theory" has somehow come to mean undoubtedly wrong. And the same thing with "Circumstantial Evidence", somehow in common english language has come to mean not very good evidence. Guess what, eye witness accounts of the accused murderer at the scene is circumstantial evidence, but damn if its not pretty devastating evidence coupled with the bloody clothes!
4. dash2+v3[view] [source] 2020-12-30 21:28:49
>>yabone+(OP)
I disagree that "it's not a coincidence that these two things happened in the same place" isn't science. It's a valid argument. In fact it's not unlike a p value. The null hypothesis is "covid came from animals". Under the null, the probability of getting this lab is very low - since there are many large cities in Asia. (The article has more details about e.g. the distance of Wuhan from wild bat populations.) I don't say that the argument is enough to be persuasive on its own.
[go to top]