If you’re interested in my thought process, all you had to do was ask. I’m right here. Against my better judgment, I’ll respond despite your condescending tone.
You seem unaware of the context. Here’s a bit of background:
Right-wing media like The Daily Wire threw out a bunch of conspiracy theories related to a lab leak and spurious connections to Collins and Fauci. Basham and her cohorts have zero evidence, only theories. (A bit like Guiliani and his election conspiracies, but I digress.)
You say “definitive proof” in the title of the thread is sensationalizing the report and a “grotesque abuse of the evidence.” Really? First, look up the definition of “definitive.” It means “decisive,” as I alluded earlier in the thread. It’s not an exaggeration to say the paper(s) more than proved the point. The evidence supports the conclusion that the origin is zoonotic. @glipsnort characterized it as “strong” and pointed out another explanation. I don’t dispute his critique. He knows way more than I ever will, but even he puts the odds at 20-1 against a lab leak. Saying that’s beyond a reasonable doubt isn’t hyperbole.
Second, did you read in the 2nd post how the principle author herself characterized it?
Where did the pandemic begin?
Was it from nature or a lab?
Since the start, this fundamental question has gone unanswered.
Until now.
That strikes me as a claim directly from the author’s mouth that the question is now answered. The headline in Science uses the past tense: “The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.” It doesn’t say “evidence suggests” or “may have been” or “is the likely epicenter.” It says “was,” as in the question is settled. Are all these experts also guilty of “grotesque abuse of the evidence”?
The same applies to your allegations of “pattern-seeking” and confirmation bias. I didn’t identify the pattern. A team of actual scientists did, and they ran the gamut of 5 highly critical peer reviewers. I didn’t see the preprint and said nothing until the article was published in a prestigious journal and I read the author’s own explanation of it. I wasn’t seeking certainty. I don’t seek or expect certainty in anything. The subject wasn’t even on my radar, but you go ahead and impute motives no matter how little you know me.
I didn’t dismiss the possibility that more evidence may exist and force us to reconsider what we now know. Steve estimated the probability that it was zoonotic at 95%. To put that into perspective, I leave open the theoretical possibility that a literal Adam & Eve existed, but there’s no evidence in favor of the idea, so I’d put the odds of that at 5% or less. Good enough for me to say the evidence is definitive. If you think 20-1 is still an open question, that’s fine. More power to ya.
No it doesn’t. Maybe if you read the author’s Twitter thread in the OP, you wouldn’t make misstatements like this.
I was agnostic and suspended judgment until conclusive evidence came forward that passed peer-review in a major scientific journal.
How is it believing what I want? There is literally no evidence pointing to a lab leak, other than the fact that the first human transmission occurred in Wuhan. Logically possible scenarios can be offered, but if the odds of them being “true” are miniscule, forgive me if I don’t give them much weight. Also, friendly reminder that this is a discussion forum. We’re not doing “science” here.
