More On the Lab Leak Hypothesis

[MightyGiants]

Rich:  The fact that numerous unqualified people agree with (or like) a qualified scientific hypothesis has no bearing upon the correctness or validity of the hypothesis.  Bob

Which was why your post with the Facebook link had NOTHING to do with the alleged scientific discussion that was supposed be taking place on this thread.   

Plus the lab escape scenario is not a "scientific hypothesis" it's a possible origin of the Covid virus.   I am not even sure what a "qualified scientific hypothesis" is, other than a choice of wording to make an unlikely scenario sound more plausible (which again has always been the ONLY purpose of this thread).

[Bob In PA]

Which was why your post with the Facebook link had NOTHING to do with the alleged scientific discussion that was supposed be taking place on this thread.   

Plus the lab escape scenario is not a "scientific hypothesis" it's a possible origin of the Covid virus.   I am not even sure what a "qualified scientific hypothesis" is, other than a choice of wording to make an unlikely scenario sound more plausible (which again has always been the ONLY purpose of this thread).

Rich: Rather than "qualified scientific hypothesis" I should have said "scientific hypothesis posed by a qualified person."  Too much shorthand sometimes makes for poor communication.  Nevertheless, my point is valid. Bob

[Blue4Life]

Rich:  The fact that numerous unqualified people agree with (or like) a qualified scientific hypothesis has no bearing upon the correctness or validity of the hypothesis.  Bob

Hypothetical trumps reality as of late and influenced by politics more so, than it used to. This has caused the nation, that "united we stand" to become "devided we stand". Of course it did trickle down to social media, forums, etc., where people on the diffrent side of the division judge each other by their stands. There's no common denominator anymore, constructive discussions, etc., just arguments going back and force on very minor points, resulting in not reading the "wrong side's" viewpoints.

In the meantime, politics as usual continues in DC; people are too busy arguing about events, points, that has no impact on their lifes...

[MightyGiants]

Rich: Rather than "qualified scientific hypothesis" I should have said "scientific hypothesis posed by a qualified person."  Too much shorthand sometimes makes for poor communication.  Nevertheless, my point is valid. Bob

There is a reason why the scientific paper produced by the World Health Organization never used the words "scientific hypothesis" because it doesn't meet the definition (but it sure does make an unlikely scenario sound more likely.

Here is the paper

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/final-joint-report_origins-studies-6-april-201.pdf?sfvrsn=4f5e5196_1&download=true


Here is a good description of what a scientific hypothesis is

https://www.livescience.com/21490-what-is-a-scientific-hypothesis-definition-of-hypothesis.html


The WHO paper uses correctly only uses the term hypothesis as that is the proper term.  This is the current list of all of them:

1  Direct zoonotic transmission
2 Introduction through intermediate host followed by zoonotic transmission
3 Introduction through the cold/food chain
4 Introduction through a laboratory incident

It's funny none of them have been ruled out and number 4 is among the least likely but if people read this thread (minus mine a few other people's posts) they would think that there was only one possible, number 4, and it's been all but proven. 

Since there has been and there will likely not be any new scientific or factual data on this matter, the continued promotion of this thread serves only a political agenda

[Bob In PA]

Rich: Thanks.  All of that is very helpful. 

"A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. " 

At first glance, it would seem to apply here because there are four suggested solutions to an unexplained occurrence (sudden appearance of the virus in humans).  BUT....

"Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis."  The four possible explanations are not hypotheses because each has been proven to be true at one time or another in one situation or another.

So a correct statement would be that there are four currently accepted scientific theories to explain the sudden appearance of the virus in humans.  That makes sense.

Bob

[bldevil]

As someone who's done research at the post-graduate level, I think I have a passing knowledge of how the scientific method works.  So I'll make some general comments which I hope can help frame this discussion.

The whole point of most of this thread was the question of whether there was enough evidence to warrant further investigation of the lab-release theory.  I don't think anyone has claimed that there was any proof at all of a lab-release. 

Now, some items I would like to emphasize.  First, facts and true statements exist independent of whoever states them.  I don't care if Einstein says "2+2=4" or if my next neighbor says "2+2=4", it is a true statement.  A lot of discussion on the last 8 pages here centered around who said what and what is their background.  Facts can stand on their own.  If they can't, then they are not facts. 

Next, I agree with Mighty that there are many times when a hypothesis does NOT warrant further investigation.  No geographer is going to start an investigation into whether the Earth is flat.  However, when a hypothesis is obviously wrong, there is an overwhelming lack of dissent among experts in the field.  Put 1000 geographers into a room and not one of them will agree that an investigation into a flat Earth is worthwhile.

Second, when it comes to technical discussions, virology in this case, we undeniably have to rely on the observations of experts in the field.  This thread, if you review it, has listed literally dozens of experts who think the lab-release hypothesis warrants further investigation.  There are many scientists who think it does not warrant further investigation.  If the lab-release hypothesis were as wrong as the-earth-is-flat idea, then there would not be a significant level of dissent.  Experts calling for more investigation include the head of the WHO, 18 scientists from pre-eminent universities including Baric who knows firsthand of the research going on at the WIV, and now Dr. Fauci.  To claim that all of these people have some right-wing axe to grind, or are have been massively misled, is simply ludicrous.

Third, this discussion is technical but there are elements of it which are accessible to non-experts.  SARS and MERS were zoonotic and supposedly Covid is as well.  However, as opposed to SARS and MERS, no intermediate transmission via animals have been found.  Dozens of thousands of bat samples have been tested and Covid has not been found in nature.  This weakens the conclusion of zoonotic origin.  Covid's intermediate mutations, similar to SARS and MERS, are also missing.  Covid appeared on the scene in a super-contagious form.  None of these observations, and many more like them, offer anything but circumstantial evidence.  But the layperson can figure out that the zoonotic theory of origin is not air-tight.

In general, the scientists who I've been around do not hesitate to call into question the fundamental preconceptions of their area.  They view the withstanding of such questioning part of the scientific method.  But they won't do so unless there is at least some indication of fruitful research.  They won't waste their time unless there is at least some possibility of an intellectual payoff.

Understanding the origin of the most calamitous biological event in at least a hundred years warrants a lot of investigation.  Until an airtight conclusion is reached.

 

[bldevil]

For the record, my guess is that--after hopefully lots of further research--the zoonotic hypothesis will eventually be confirmed as the most likely Covid-origin explanation.

[MightyGiants]

As someone who's done research at the post-graduate level, I think I have a passing knowledge of how the scientific method works.  So I'll make some general comments which I hope can help frame this discussion.

The whole point of most of this thread was the question of whether there was enough evidence to warrant further investigation of the lab-release theory.  I don't think anyone has claimed that there was any proof at all of a lab-release. 

Now, some items I would like to emphasize.  First, facts and true statements exist independent of whoever states them.  I don't care if Einstein says "2+2=4" or if my next neighbor says "2+2=4", it is a true statement.  A lot of discussion on the last 8 pages here centered around who said what and what is their background.  Facts can stand on their own.  If they can't, then they are not facts. 

Next, I agree with Mighty that there are many times when a hypothesis does NOT warrant further investigation.  No geographer is going to start an investigation into whether the Earth is flat.  However, when a hypothesis is obviously wrong, there is an overwhelming lack of dissent among experts in the field.  Put 1000 geographers into a room and not one of them will agree that an investigation into a flat Earth is worthwhile.

Second, when it comes to technical discussions, virology in this case, we undeniably have to rely on the observations of experts in the field.  This thread, if you review it, has listed literally dozens of experts who think the lab-release hypothesis warrants further investigation.  There are many scientists who think it does not warrant further investigation.  If the lab-release hypothesis were as wrong as the-earth-is-flat idea, then there would not be a significant level of dissent.  Experts calling for more investigation include the head of the WHO, 18 scientists from pre-eminent universities including Baric who knows firsthand of the research going on at the WIV, and now Dr. Fauci.  To claim that all of these people have some right-wing axe to grind, or are have been massively misled, is simply ludicrous.

Third, this discussion is technical but there are elements of it which are accessible to non-experts.  SARS and MERS were zoonotic and supposedly Covid is as well.  However, as opposed to SARS and MERS, no intermediate transmission via animals have been found.  Dozens of thousands of bat samples have been tested and Covid has not been found in nature.  This weakens the conclusion of zoonotic origin.  Covid's intermediate mutations, similar to SARS and MERS, are also missing.  Covid appeared on the scene in a super-contagious form.  None of these observations, and many more like them, offer anything but circumstantial evidence.  But the layperson can figure out that the zoonotic theory of origin is not air-tight.

In general, the scientists who I've been around do not hesitate to call into question the fundamental preconceptions of their area.  They view the withstanding of such questioning part of the scientific method.  But they won't do so unless there is at least some indication of fruitful research.  They won't waste their time unless there is at least some possibility of an intellectual payoff.

Understanding the origin of the most calamitous biological event in at least a hundred years warrants a lot of investigation.  Until an airtight conclusion is reached.

B-Devil,

Both you and Bob are intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting my point.   My point is and it's pretty much been proven that a long-shot possibility has been overhyped  (to support a right-wing political agenda).  It is not as you and Bob suggest/imply that I don't think all possibilities should be continued to be examed. 

If you read the two sentences I bolded, you can see that you inadvertently proved my point.   Had this not been a politically driven thread and one base PURELY on science and the quest for the truth, there wouldn't have been the posting "literally dozens of experts who think the lab-release hypothesis warrants further investigation"  against ZERO postings from the "many scientists who think it does not warrant further investigation".

Had this actually been a thread devoted to a scientific discussion there would have been articles and posts from experts on BOTH SIDES of the debate.   As you so astutely pointed out, this thread didn't do that.

[bldevil]

"My point is and it's pretty much been proven that a long-shot possibility has been overhyped  (to support a right-wing political agenda).  It is not as you and Bob suggest/imply that I don't think all possibilities should be continued to be examed. "

I agree that politicians will overhype long-shot possibilities.  The lab-leak hypothesis may have been over-hyped.  I'm not sure, to be candid.  That's a distinction I don't much care about.  Overhyped or not, I'm interested in where the virus came from.

But...are you saying that "all possibilities should be continued to be examined" including the lab-leak possibility? 

[MightyGiants]

.

But...are you saying that "all possibilities should be continued to be examined" including the lab-leak possibility?

I feel like this question is akin to "when did you stop beating your wife?"

I posted the 4 possibilities included in the WHO report which included the lab incident scenario

I said they should continue to examine "ALL" possibilities

I am not sure exactly how anyone could have read all of that and thought "well I am still not sure Rich wants to examine all the possibilities including lab incident"

As for the lab incident hypothesis being overhyped, how are you not sure?  You literally said there has been a very lopsided (and I think we both agree unscientific) cherry-picking of facts and points of view.  That lopsidedness that you noted favored the exact same scenario that is the political favorite of America's right-wing/GOP.

As I said early, I see no difference from the people who started and continue to promote this thread trying to overhype the lab incident scenario as what the Chinese government is doing overhyping their favorite the cold/food chain scenario.   

[Bob In PA]

Rich: Your analysis does not account for historical background.  What was the situation when this thread was begun? 

For over a year, there was little interest (or mention of) the lab theory. Only recently, factors that lead to early dismissal of - or ignoring - it have been reconsidered.  This thread announces its re-emergence.

I believe it's unnecessary to post articles espousing the animal-to-man theory here, because (1) that is not the topic; and (2) that theory has had a one-year head start. This thread IMO is the "catch-up" phase.

Bob

[MightyGiants]

Rich: Your analysis does not account for historical background.  What was the situation when this thread was begun? 

For over a year, there was little interest (or mention of) the lab theory. Only recently, factors that lead to early dismissal of - or ignoring - it have been reconsidered.  This thread announces its re-emergence.

I believe it's unnecessary to post articles espousing the animal-to-man theory here, because (1) that is not the topic; and (2) that theory has had a one-year head start. This thread IMO is the "catch-up" phase.

Bob

The history was topic was already introduced a highly political manner and discussed before being shut down as we tried to rid the front porch of political discussion.   So this topic had already been discussed.

It was reposted for one reason and one reason only and it was so that you and Jimmy could continue to indulge your obsession of promoting your political views on the front porch.   

It's also true the America's right-wing hate/propaganda machine has been overhyping this remote possibility for political gain.

I really think that you and Jimmy should consider cutting back on your consumption of right-wing propaganda so you don't feel the need to regurgitate it hear on our front porch

[Bob In PA]

The history was topic was already introduced a highly political manner and discussed before being shut down as we tried to rid the front porch of political discussion.   So this topic had already been discussed.

It was reposted for one reason and one reason only and it was so that you and Jimmy could continue to indulge your obsession of promoting your political views on the front porch.   

It's also true the America's right-wing hate/propaganda machine has been overhyping this remote possibility for political gain.

I really think that you and Jimmy should consider cutting back on your consumption of right-wing propaganda so you don't feel the need to regurgitate it hear on our front porch

Rich: That's YOUR version of the story. I disagree (and suspect I'm not alone).  Further, persistently accusing members of "consuming right-wing propaganda" only serves to illustrate a preoccupation with politics.  Bob

[MightyGiants]

Rich: That's YOUR version of the story. I disagree (and suspect I'm not alone).  Further, persistently accusing members of "consuming right-wing propaganda" only serves to illustrate a preoccupation with politics.  Bob

Bob,

To indulge your argumentum ad populum mindset, I am hardly the only one on this thread that has taken note of its political nature

Also it's not an accusation when it's true.    It's a statement of fact.  It's like you guys don't think I take notice of the sources when you post links.


Also, it's rather humorous that you try and characterize my desire to eliminate political threads as "a preoccupation of politics"


It's almost like this thread wasn't started with an article from "the Hill"

A publication that describes itself as:

"Since 1994, The Hill has reported on the intersection of politics and business"

[Bob In PA]

Also, it's rather humorous that you try and characterize my desire to eliminate political threads as "a preoccupation of politics"

.... and I find it ironic that you try to characterize your preoccupation with politics as a desire to eliminate political threads.  Bob