[brippalcharrid]

I don't think that people are doubting the virologists' epistemic ability; it's the fact that their reasoning seems to be motivated by a desire to deflect blame away from the NIAID/CCP/virology field which is the problem.

[mistermann]

Is that (motivated reasoning) not a textbook failure of epistemic ability though?

I mean, I suppose from a pragmatic standpoint (the world as it is) it's starting to get into the realm of enlightenment, but if friggin' scientists can't think clearly, then perhaps their new found "five star", god-tier status in society should be knocked down to four or four and a half stars.

[brippalcharrid]

I was being way too generous; wilful blindness would be closer, and it's combination of people

- making a conscious decision not to think the unthinkable ("work in my scientific sub-discipline has caused a disaster")

- attempting to avoid particular repercussions for their field, such as a world-wide ban on gain-of-function research (plenty of scientists would want to avoid what they might see as a disproportionate knee-jerk reaction from lay members of the general public which hindered work in a field that they believed to have great promise for the future, and they might believe that this decision should be in the hands of experts).

- trying to prevent the loss of sources of funding for virological research and the resulting impact on their career

and finally, and most importantly

- being moved by a misplaced sense of humanitarian responsibility to try to prevent the escalation of geopolitical tensions between superpowers ("virologists the world over have a vital role to play at this present moment in standing shoulder to shoulder in heading off the looming threat of war").

If I were cynical, I'd think that recent changes to reporting on the subject were as much a result of changes to the occupancy of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. as they were to evidence that has come to light over the last few months.

[mistermann]

To me, much of this is a subset of causes of epistemic failures (plus dishonesty, selfishness) - I have witnessed first hand many people who consider themselves to be better at thinking because they are a scientist, or are scientific thinkers, or believe in The Science. To me, this is like a form of intellectual cancer in our society.

> being moved by a misplaced sense of humanitarian responsibility to try to prevent the escalation of geopolitical tensions between superpowers ("virologists the world over have a vital role to play at this present moment in standing shoulder to shoulder in heading off the looming threat of war").

> If I were cynical, I'd think that recent changes to reporting on the subject were as much a result of changes to the occupancy of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. as they were to evidence that has come to light over the last few months.

I actually consider these to be fairly valid motivations. True, it violates strict epistemology, but if it is done with full knowledge at least it is understandable. However, I haven't encountered many examples of people who acknowledge that they are lying for the greater good - rather, it seems much more common that people are lying to themselves and others, motivated by a fear of Trump (or whatever the boogeyman du jour is). If lying is done with awareness, I seem to consider it less dangerous (which is perhaps a dumb way to think...."it depends" I imagine).