zlacker

If we abstract away the specific actors/motivations, this reminds me a bit of the Oumuamua debate. "Man made" and "natural" are both very broad theories that admit many details and are thus hard to falsify. But I wonder to what degree we agree about:

(1) Which category (if either) has an advantage by Occam's razor? (2) Which category (if either) is more easily falsifiable? (Meaning easier to determine improbable, since it is hard to falsify them entirely)

For me, I see neither having an advantage on (1), but on (2) there are a finite number of relevant, well-known lab techniques that could be investigated.

>>evryda+(OP)
Just one nitpick - it does not need to be 'man made' to make a 'lab escape'.

>>zby+fa
Yeah, my spouse just hit me with the same point. I think the ["natural" process but facilitated by lab escape] branch is probably the hardest to falsify, so it's a place peoples' prior weights on that scenario are going to end up really dominating discourse.

I think that branch is past what scientific dialog really covers, and it's probably the methods and standards of proof from legal exploration that might be the way to progress the discussion. Unfortunately, the world is missing a moderator that folks would broadly trust to facilitate that conversation.

>>zby+fa
Correct, and this is talked about a good bit in the article.