[thrwoi4234234]

It's actually worse - the "truth" necessarily implies that there is but one, and that everything else in false.

Does this sound familiar ? This is exactly what religious loonies say in order to take control.

Science necessarily involves keeping your own ignorance, epistemic and otherwise, in mind while dealing with things, but it's quite worrying that the West is going back on what was won with blood and sweat.

[adflux]

The lab leak theory was discarded as false and conspiracy thinking, now many experts believe this to be the case... What is a conspiracy one day can eventually be the truth, e.g. the Tonkin Incident.

[atoav]

I am not aure about the US but here in Germany most experts didn't say it was a conspiracy theory, but that those who claim this is the truth lack the data to back it up.

I could also argue that there is a invisible unicorn orbiting the solar aystem. As long as there is no real proof for it we have to accept that it is just a theory. And the more facts align with my theory the more motivation there should be to check my theory by trying to disproove it.

SARS-1/MERS was prooven to stem from bats in the same region, so assuming that instead of a lab leak theory was more in line with known/knowable facts than a lab leak theory. When the facts changes theories change, that is science.

[largbae]

That's just the point: How could you ever assemble the data to turn a theory into truth if you are not allowed to discuss it?

[atoav]

Who wasn't allowed to discuss it and by whom? Again I am not from the US, but afaik it wasn't helpful that the "CHINA-VIRUS"-fraction of your political spectrum (which is quite frankly not known for their truth seeking behavior) were the first one who really wished this to be true.

Serious scientist have to remain open for all possibilities no matter who wants them to be true, but it really doesn't help if there is a irrational coloration to it including people being assaulted in the street because of how they look.

Societies with a calmer political climate can react calmer to things. Which is why the German Fauci equivalent explained when this theory first came up "sure that would be possible — it just doesn't seem plausible by our current information".

And the idea that "you are not allowed to say that" seems just a bit... weird to me given that this was a hot topic many people discussed. Scientists explained on public television why they don't deem it likely, that is pretty much opposite of "not being allowed to discuss it". It just happened that the side which believed it had no real evidence that could have been discussed, so at one point the discussion found its natural end without any new data. I remember the situation back then: People back then wanted this theory to be true really hard without any supporting facts. Sure it being true was an option, but people weren't calm about it, they were nearly desperate, as if the only way they can make sense of the pandemic was to blame it on someone act of mallice by some (evil) actor.

Maybe it is because I live in Germany but I am quite frankly allergic to this kind of behaviour. It has caused Genocides before (and probably will do so in the future). When you want some comforting truth or some story to be true so much, you stop caring whether it is actually true or likely you are lying to yourself. And when you lie to yourself just hard enough everybody is able to become a monster.

[fitzie]

it waste allowed to be discussed publicly. it was labeled a racist fringe debunked conspiracy theory, and that sent all the signals you needed to chill scientists from using their platforms and expertise to gain attention to this idea. for example, when the head of the CDC mentioned it during a hearing he was ridiculed. based on largely opinions published in the cause social media companies to limit and censor information, which Twitter and Facebook did, for example the whistleblower that appeared on tucker Carlson's show.

of course there were a few brave scientists that spoke the truth of the viability and likelihood of the lab leak hypothesis, but that only proves how severe the suppression of discussion was.

people let your political opinions dictate what discourse is acceptable and which is not. if one imagines that your political opponents "wished it to be true" and seem to think of even labelling the virus from china as some sort of wrong think then one can be happy to pick and choose whichever truth you want to accept. scientists both hear and abroad where able to dismiss that lab leak is not plausible, based on lack of evidence. but the same thing could be said for the wilderness human contact. fauci said based on history lab leak is unlikely, in spite of the fact that lab leaks had occurred in the past.

I personally have no doubt that China s messaging was to suppress support for the lab leak, and they have succeeding in avoid any pressure to come forward with the truth about the actives of that lab in Wuhan . I also think that there is an entire field on scientific study that needs much more regulation and discipline, and they have also avoided any significant scrutiny.

I will await the discussion from mainstream virologists on tv and in medical and scientific journals demanding transparency and reform. but I will not hold my breath.

[pcrh]

>I will await the discussion from mainstream virologists on tv and in medical and scientific journals demanding transparency and reform.

That exists. It's exactly what people mis-read as scientists supporting the lab leak hypothesis. Instead they support a more open attitude by China regarding investigations, which is neither evidence nor proof of either an artificial origin for the virus, nor for the lab leak theory.

[unethical_ban]

Dude, come on. FOX and Trump were running with this theory as fact, using it as a pejorative against the Chinese government, and kicking the shit out of Asians across the country while we were in the grips of a pandemic. Instead of focusing on things like "What can I as a citizen/political leader do to help the situation", it was just more hate-mongering.

Yes, the truth is important, and if the virus came from a lab leak, it should be known and dealt with. FOX and company weren't journalists looking for answers. They were hatemongers giving their viewers an "other" to blame for something out of their control, while telling them at the same time that the virus was fake and masks are tyrannical.

No one said you couldn't discuss it. No one was jailing you for talking about it. Stop the fake oppression.

[cudgy]

Who’s the hate monger here? Maybe some of the people you are referring to understood the simple relationship between location of the lab and the outbreak as being valid evidence as well. And you call them “hate-mongers” for thinking so.

[unethical_ban]

To answer your question, not me. To clear my point up, I am refering to the people putting the "Wuhan Flu" as the headline for months, Trump and Fox and the alt-right. No matter how valid the possibility, the discussion wasn't being had in good faith. Like, who gives a shit while we're dealing with the problem? It's like arguing if your stove had a gas leak as your house is burning down, except not only are you having the conversation at the wrong time, you're encouraging your friends to go kill the stove-maker's friends.

Let's just be clear on this: The "opinion" section of Fox "news" is one of the most dangerous organs of communication in society today.

[ixacto]

What if it turns out the COVID did come from a lab. Will it still be “hate mongering” the “others” then? Or do we start embargo if the PRC?

The left likes to call anything they don’t want to talk about “hate” or “racist” these days.

This usually happens when upper middle class liberals get offended on minorities or “others” behalf.

The Orwellian newspeak is also not helping.

[unethical_ban]

I don't know if you're intentionally misreading my post, or if I didn't make it clear enough - although I did clarify in a reply.

The hate-mongering is from the opinion shows that made themselves the heroic, oppressed "real-fact" people by constantly talking about it, by making it a conspiracy when it wasn't really, it just didn't matter at the time. Read my other reply, I'm not going to type it all out.

No, it isn't hate-mongering to wonder if the virus came from a lab. It's hate-mongering to play the victim, to scream "conspiracy!" as a strawman to millions of people, and have people going batshit crazy about it when it doesn't really matter. In other words, it's not the question that is the problem, it's the framing that Fox and Co. put around their narrative.

Don't even talk about "the left". It's not a monolith. I didn't talk about "conservatives" writ-large, my point is against the Fox op-ed cult - a very specific subset of the right. Please limit your assumptions as much as possible.

And really, it's makes zero sense to make the sweeping accusations against everyone on a side of a political spectrum. "The left" etc. is something to avoid. Much as I think the federal GOP is actively working against American values for the sake of its own power, I don't blame every conservative voter for their lack of options, nor do I think every Republican voter is literally Mitch McConnell.

[pcrh]

On the contrary, no expert believes the coronavirus lab leak hypothesis is correct; a few do however say it should be investigated.

This is exactly this kind of misunderstanding that this whole thread is about.

[smaryjerry]

What you are describing is just another manipulation of words by media that has caught you and others. Most scientists believe the virus had a lab in origin, and couldn’t have been natural, but whether that is due to a lab leak is completely speculation based on the fact it likely has a lab origin.

[refenestrator]

You need a cite for that, and some definition of 'scientist' that actually lends credibility.

"Couldn't have been natural" is especially a stretch, given that SARS and Bird Flu manifested naturally in the same part of the world a few years prior.

[pcrh]

No they do not. Most believe it jumped from a wild animal to humans a short while before the outbreak in Wuhan.

[orestarod]

Oh it most likely did jump from animals to humans. Lab outbreak theory does not refer to the virus being artificial, but on that the jump occurred inside the lab due to bad measures and then leaked outside.

[pcrh]

GP referred to the virus being unnatural, whereas there is very strong evidence that it is natural.

As to a natural virus being accidentally leaked from a lab, there's no evidence for that scenario, except for the fact that the first major SARS-CoV2 outbreak happened in the same city. For what it's worth, this is not as implausible a co-incidence as might be claimed, since it is not uncommon for a virology lab to study viruses endemic to the region it is located in.

[FeepingCreature]

I believe there is only one truth, and everything else is false.

But I also believe humans do not have access to it.

[pixl97]

I call this thermodynamic truth.

And while it is the sole arbiter of truth, the moment something occurs that truth starts decaying via entropy. Photons fly away at light speed never to be seen by us again. The energy that remains starts mixing in ways that cannot be reversed. You quickly lead to scenarios where more than one initial state could lead to the current state we can measure.

And worse we can never exist in a system where we capture and keep this information. You either alter the 'experiment' by measuring it, aka chaos theory. Or, you bring about the premature heat death of the universe.

[mlac]

There are facts and there is the context of the facts and the impact those facts have on people.

One can argue the news should just report the facts, but they add additional context and information to explain why the facts matter.

Verifying the facts / truth is objective and clear (e.g. it rained 2 inches today). Determining whether the impact is properly reported (e.g. “devastating” flooding occurred) is murky. And the flooding could have been devastating - to one family, to a village, to a school. So it’s not untrue, it’s just more subjective as you move from numbers to impact. And the news cares more about reporting impact than facts and will tailor the narrative to explain the impact to their audience.

Look at the news service all sides. You can figure out the facts (e.g. a law was passed) then see what each side is saying about the impact. The impact may be true for both sides, just presented in a vastly different way.

[dudeman13]

I agree with this position.

The idea that there may be 'truths' sounds utterly bonkers to me. a ^ -a is considered a contradiction for a reason.

[MatteoFrigo]

There is a lot of subtlety hidden in "a ^ ~a is a contradiction", because physical reality is more complex than it appears.

For example, one of the stunning consequences of Special Relativity is that there exist situations in which an observer says that event A happens before event B, and another observer says that event A happens after event B, and both are correct. Nature does not appear to be at all bothered by this "contradiction", however, and the world works just fine. Even more puzzling "contradictions" arise in quantum mechanics.

For all we know, it appears that reality is indeed dependent on the observer at a deep level. Maybe there is an even deeper level at which statements such as "a ^ ~a is false" hold, but so far nobody has been able to discover any.

[resonious]

I think the real difficulty is in human language. "a ^ ~a is a contradiction" is still perfectly applicable but apparently requires a "for observer A" clause. To supply all of the clauses necessary to make a completely unambiguous statement would be way too long to be humanly comprehensible. It makes me think of the Carl Sagan quote about needing to invent the universe before you can make anything "from scratch".

[josephcsible]

I'd argue that "event A happens before event B" is objectively true if and only if event A happens in event B's past light cone, and so there's no actual contradiction. The only weirdness you get is that if events A and B are space-like separated, none of the statements "event A happens before event B", "event A happens after event B", or "event A happens at the same time as event B" are objectively true. But you wouldn't say it's contradictory or paradoxical, just that it's a partial order rather than a total order.

[nonameiguess]

You're simply misrepresenting what the actual statement with a truth value is in these cases. The fact that events happening close to each other temporally from fast-moving inertial frames can't be given a canonical temporal ordering doesn't undermine the existence of truth. A happens before B in the inertial reference frame of one observer and B happens before A in the inertial reference frame of a different observer are both true statements, and the converse of each is a false statement. The insight of special relativity is that there exists no God's eye reference frame independent of inertial reference frames. Nothing moves against some eternal static backdrop serving as a coordinate anchor. Things only move with respect to other moving things. That is in and of itself also a true statement, and the converse is false. Non-contradiction still holds everywhere. That you need further details and context to determine the truth of a statement doesn't mean it has no defined truth value.

[ghoward]

The Special Relativity example you brought up is not a good example because it's about observation, not the truth of the order of the events.

Reality is not dependent on the observer, but we are observers, so that's why everyone thinks they have their own version of the truth. We are the weak link.

[dudeman13]

>Nature does not appear to be at all bothered by this "contradiction"

There is no contradiction. Our intuition for what 'A happens before B' means and implies is just bad/incomplete, as special relativity models.

>Even more puzzling "contradictions" arise in quantum mechanics.

I would bet a couple years of wage that what seems like contradictions will eventually be cleared up with some non-intuitive models, just like with special relativity.

I imagine the 'changes based on observer' problems of quantum mechanics will be more understandable once we decide what an observer is ( goddamnit people from physics, you don't add such a highly abstract variable to your model without giving it some good definition x( ), with some better experimental apparatus or with some deeper models of reality.

[nix23]

Please then tell me what is the one true religion? :)

Humans are not logical systems.

[dudeman13]

>Please then tell me what is the one true religion? :)

I dunno. I'm inclined towards none of the ones I know a little about being true since they really like to ask you to 'trust me bro, feel it in your heart' instead of just giving you good reasons to believe them.

Newton gave us far better arguments for universal gravitation than most people do for their religions, and he was ultimately wrong/incomplete.

>Humans are not logical systems.

Yes, that is a bug in the humanity system. Generally we try to diminish its effects when truth-judging (or maybe probable-truth-approximation-judging if you care about your epistemology). Recognizing this bug is useful to try and diminish its effect.

[nix23]

>Yes, that is a bug in the humanity system.

So the urge for flying to the moon is a bug? Climb a Mountain?

[dudeman13]

It depends on your utility function, of course. Will flying to the moon or climbing a mountain bring you closer to the things you value?

The urge is a bug if it doesn't match the things you value. The urge is not a bug if it matches the things you value.

With some fat margin for uncertainty around 'matching the things you value' because that's hard to quantify.

Utility functions can have 'axiomatic values' in them. Not everything you value is deduced from underlying principles.

[dalo]

Belief is independent of reality. There is only explanation of our origination that is true.

[username90]

The one true "religion" is science. Once a religion is discovered to be true then science will include that religion.

[nix23]

Science is NOT religion, believes have no weight in science just proof.

Religion is the exact opposite.

[nix23]

>I believe there is only one truth, and everything else is false.

That is maybe true with science, but not with living breathing things.

Just one example:

What is the best system to live in? Capitalism, Socialism or a mix of Capitalism AND Socialism?

Often it is just not a question of truth when it comes to humans.

[fighterpilot]

It just appears that there's multiple truthful answers to that question since you haven't fully defined what the word "best" means.

If you rigorously define what you mean by that word in this question, then there will be one and only one answer.

Of course, whether we're capable of finding that answer is a separate question.

[nix23]

>It just appears that there's multiple truthful answers to that question since you haven't fully defined what the word "best" means.

That's exactly what i mean...humans and everything that comes with them are not systems....let alone logical ones.

Hell even science makes a difference (hard science and soft science)

[u20210717]

>That is maybe true with science, but not with living breathing things.

Are you saying living things have some irreducible complexity that's unexplainable or undetectable by scientific methods?

>Just one example: What is the best system to live in?

It's a pretty bad example. There's necessarily an answer which, if nothing else, is the best for the largest number of people. People aren't infinitely variable.

[nix23]

>Are you saying living things have some irreducible complexity that's unexplainable or undetectable by scientific methods?

No i said Humans are not logically describable systems.

>There's necessarily an answer which, if nothing else, is the best for the largest number of people.

Having Slaves because it's an easier life for the larger population for example?

>People aren't infinitely variable.

Try to mathematically proof that ;)

[u20210717]

>No i said Humans are not logically describable systems.

Arguably they're equivalent statements.

>Having Slaves because it's an easier life for the larger population for example?

Yes. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it couldn't be the "best". By the way, historically, slave-based economies needed the majority of the population to be slaves. It makes sense, since the slaves are consuming their own production and are expending more energy than the non-slaves.

>Try to mathematically proof that ;)

Humans don't grow arbitrarily large or small, nor do they grow arbitrary numbers of limbs, nor have arbitrary numbers of bones. A person chosen at random from anywhere in the world isn't equally likely to hold any opinion from the infinity of opinions they could conceive of. For example, I could confidently say no person has ever simultaneously believed that Google should be subject to more regulation and that the current pharaoh is a living deity.

[eecc]

Nog sure about the intent of Google (and as they say, the road to hell is paved with good ones) but you’re reframing. It’s not a matter of censoring deviations from orthodoxy, rather one of removing disinformation and demonstrable falsehoods, often used for propaganda and to setup victim scenarios.

[argvargc]

Those engaging in widespread censorship create disinformation and falsehood, by omission.

In history, it has always been those engaging in widespread censorship who turn out to be disastrously and/or maliciously wrong.

The science now being censored has become so well-established, that at this point, Google/YT et al, has and will delete and suppress the sharing of peer-reviewed science published in mainstream journals and indexed in PubMed.

That 100% ends their credibility. I deplore anyone expecting an explanation as to why.

Anyone yet standing by such incredulous, irresponsible and/or actively-malicious action, reveals themselves as same, for all to see.

[eecc]

Uh, I’ve read plenty about CIA techniques to overthrow undesired governments and a favorite trick is propping astroturfing campaigns claiming the wildest tripe and alt-truth against the soon-to-be “liberated”.

So please, come up with proof or yours is just another case of trumped up claims

[argvargc]

I honestly can't make head nor tails of what you've said here, and am left wondering if you're a bot?

I made a statement, on-topic, about the nature and history of censorship, Google's credibility as arbiter of truth, and how naked they appear now as a result of how extreme they've become in that self-appointed role.

If you're not a bot, maybe try reading it again with that understanding?

[eecc]

Bot? Please step down that high horse of yours.

This thread ends here