zlacker

So they all signed a letter stating they were political actors and jokes of scientists and now have second thoughts. Too bad.

>>mesozo+(OP)
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+rC
What new things were learned here?

>>someth+rC
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.

>>peytn+XD
Only they can answer that. The general point is that people should be able to change their mind; and the argument that 'you used to believe something different therefore you must be wrong/acting in bad faith' is nonsense.

It's still possible that they are wrong/bad actors; but that can't be determined based simply on a single change of opinion.

>>someth+rC
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?!

>>George+vE
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).

>>mrkram+1H
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+8J
You can’t stay on a high horse like that if your opinion is that some other opinion is a dumb, ridiculous conspiracy theory and then you change your opinion to that theory.

If you want a fair discussion of theories you can’t label the other one a conspiracy theory.

>>tinus_+GJ
I agree that using the phrase 'conspiracy theory' in the original Lancet letter was too much. And I'm totally fine with people taking issue with that. And, in hindsight, they really should've waited for more information before forming and strongly expressing such an opinion. They're definitely not free from blame. But I still think people should be able to change their mind by any amount based on new information. Why would you possibly argue that people should have to stick with ideas they no longer believe in just because they previously argued against them?

So, should they be able to change their mind? Sure. Should they be less dismissive of opposing views? Also yes. There's no contradiction there.

>>someth+iM
Of course they can change their opinion. But if you express your opinion by questioning the credibility of others and then change your mind then what should that do to your credibility?

>>someth+rC
Science is not supposed to be signing your name to condemn anyone who raises a question as a conspiracy theorist.

This letter would be appropriate if people were proposing some terrible danger. It was always a stupid thing to do and the people who signed it never should. They will likely be thought of by their peers as idiots for the rest of their careers.

>>someth+QG
There’s a difference between being wrong and being an asshole. An apology is needed, not a change of mind.

>>someth+AH
I am specifically referring to the Lancet letter that is the subject of the article (full text: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...).

Relevant excerpts:

> The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.

> Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus. We support the call from the Director-General of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture.

>>someth+8J
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.

>>someth+AH
> 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

>>someth+QG
Categorically dismissing an opposing view as false, and then reversing course, is not necessarily acting in bad faith, but I think any reasonable observer would question their trustworthiness.

The fact that people still believe "scientists" after all those flip-flops is astounding. It's like those "scientists" believe their reputation (individual and as a group) is invincible and they can get away with making unsubstantiated claims without being called out -- and surprisingly that's exactly what happens, mostly.

I'm not "anti-science" by any means and I don't believe in "conspiracy theories" but I can see why people are starting to view the scientific establishment with suspicion.

>>hnfong+ex2
I was exactly as accurate as I thought :D and as you point out the meanings thanks for making it clearer.