zlacker

I find it hard to take seriously any “scientist” that dismisses an idea as a “conspiracy theory” (i.e. a concept developed by the CIA specifically to discredit political opponents) as opposed to using actual rational / scientific arguments.

At best, it demonstrates intellectual laziness, at worst a political / ideological conviction, neither of which is a hallmark of a good scientist.

>>tomp+(OP)
To be clear, the scientist is not quoted as calling it a conspiracy theory, that is the wording of the author of the article.

The scientist provides a scientific explanation (“Recombination is naturally very, very frequent in these viruses, there are recombination breakpoints in the spike protein and these codons appear unusual exactly because we’ve not sampled enough.”).

>>tomp+(OP)
First, "conspiracy theory" these days has a wider meaning, in that it can be used to refer to pretty much any claim that goes against conventional explanations. I'm not a fan of the wide use of this term but it is what it is and it's now basically a useless term in any discussion except for manipulation.

But let's flip this round as the author here is openly heavily weighing his dismissal of scientific support for natural origin by claiming that it is supported by ideological reasons. That's exactly the same as someone dismissing the lab claim for ideological/conspiracy reasons, just the other way round. Natural origin doesn't support the author's ideology, so he dismisses it and has a bias towards evidence for lab origin. The author has previous done this exact some thing with his previous writings, taking a fringe position and dismissing scientific objection that aligns with the scientific consensus as ideology. Basically, this is a subjective opinion piece, not objective analysis.

>>tomp+(OP)
Conspiracy theories are as old as humanity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories

What makes you think that they are a concept developed by the CIA?

>>Paradi+F5
Even the exact phrase "conspiracy theory" predates the CIA by at least 40 years. So it seems the poster's theory about the origin of the conspiracy theory is, reflectively, a conspiracy theory itself. Given that the CIA is so often the subject of such conspiracy theories, I suspect irony might have been employed.

>>altacc+l2
I agree with you conspiracy theory can mean pretty much anything for example during WW2 people couldn't grasp that Nazi regime had extermination camps until Allies entered East Europe and Germany and filmed the horrors of those camps. Some people could've called extermination camps conspiracy theory and regard it as propaganda against Hitler and Nazi Germany.

>>mrkram+ze
When entering the camps, they made sure to document well, because they knew no one could possibly believe the extent of the atrocities without seeing themselves.

>>techno+2a
Now I can't tell if the commenter legitimately thinks that no scientific mind would dismiss conspiracy theories or if they're making fun of people who want scientists to entertain conspiracy theories.

>>tomp+(OP)
The problem with calling it a conspiracy theory does not hinge on whatever the CIA may or may not have used the expression for, but rather on the unassailable fact that there is no implied conspiracy in said theory. It's an accident theory, calling it a conspiracy theory is just as wrong as saying that James Dean died in a Porsche conspiracy.

>>tomp+(OP)
But it needing a conspiracy to be kept quiet is one of the main arguments against thr lab theory.

How many people (lab technicians, doctors, 'police') would know it is from a lab and are hiding that information? If the answer is 'hundreds' then the chances of it being kept hidden are very low. That is what labeling it a conspiracy theory means.

>>okaram+2o
You do realize the power of China's information control system and the level of national fervor their people have right? Any mention would be investigated, probably hidden and the person and their family disappeared.

>>okaram+2o
Back in January, it wasn’t. Some Chinese friends of mine became very convinced it was a lab leak back in Jan 2020 based on rumors on WeChat. The censors cleaned that up, but I’m pretty confident that privately a lot of people in China believe the lab leak theory.

>>_asumm+ti
That's what I meant so that some people can not call the holocaust a conspiracy theory.