[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> I have absolutely no preference for one theory over the other. Or neither. I have no special evidence, and speculation at this point seems pretty pointless.

That's a false objectivity. We have very strong prior knowledge that diseases arise naturally, without the need for human intervention. To assume there was human intervention requires accordingly strong evidence, at least as strong as the stength of the prior knowledge.

This is where Occam's razor comes in. We do not need to imagine lab leaks, when a natural origin suffices to explain the pandemic.

Also, the "3 observations" you list are observations used to justify the hypothesis that a lab like happened, not observations that caused the hypothesis to be proposed in the first place. First people assumed there was a lab leak, then they went out to find reasons to support a lab leak. That's putting the cart before the horses. Solid reasoning needs observations to precede a hypothesis, not the other way around.

[undecisive]

This is all utter horse manure.

> We have very strong prior knowledge that diseases arise naturally

Correct. We also have very strong prior knowledge that existing diseases can be manipulated and produced by means of unnatural selection.

We also have strong prior knowledge that this particular lab have done a fair amount of that. With coronaviruses. With bats. 5 minutes with wikipedia would tell you that.

It's a bit like saying "We have very strong prior knowledge that coins can land heads-up, so this coin could never be showing tails".

> not observations that caused the hypothesis to be proposed in the first place

Please cite your sources. Otherwise, you're just showing bias against the people proposing the theory in the first place.

And let's be fair, conspiracy theorists are more often wrong than right, so I understand your distrust of them.

But also let's be fair:

- if it was true that Covid-19 originated in that lab, I don't think anyone is saying "oh no, China would never cover something like this up"

- the geographical coincidence is a compelling coincidence.

> Solid reasoning needs observations to precede a hypothesis, not the other way around.

This is dodgy ground, and shows a serious misunderstanding of the applicability - and even the process - of the scientific method. Observations like "viruses rarely jump between species like this" and "virology labs can produce viruses" are valid outcomes of pre-hypothesis research. Tests such as "If the WHO try to investigate, the Chinese government will attempt to restrict investigators" might be problematic (write it up in your analysis!), but are nonetheless valid. There are very few easily measured predictions in this.

If you want to go scientific method on this, by all means share your hypotheses and tests. "Lots of clever people have said this" or "I trust this source more than that source" is not a valid test when the waters are so muddied.

So no, this is not false objectivity at all. This is your opinion masquerading as fact. In all the data gathering I've done, I've seen nothing to compel me to take one opinion over another. If you want to actually try, using real arguments, please feel free.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> This is all utter horse manure.

That's great to know. Thank you for your kind and dignified contribution.

[undecisive]

Any time.

I will point out though, I would rather be undignified and call out bad arguments, than saying it takes a "certain type of person" to show bad arguments.

Prove me wrong. Show me the arguments that actually do make sense. I'd love to have a good reason not to sit on the fence, these spikes ain't doing my piles any good.

But quite frankly, my dignity doesn't care.

[cade]

One of the more amusing versions of, "I may be mistaken on some points and need to reconsider" that I've read in a while...

[afpx]

A scientist parks her car under a tree, everyday. Occasionally, branches fall off and scratch her car. Today, she goes outside and sees that her window is smashed. She looks around to find the branch that smashed her window but can't find it. She notices some kids playing baseball nearby. They look guilty. However, scientist rules that the window was broken by a branch because strong prior knowledge.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> However, scientist rules that the window was broken by a branch because strong prior knowledge.

Prior knowledge doesn't stop you from forming new hypotheses, otherwise we wouldn't be going anywhere. The way it works is, you make an observation, you form a hypothesis to explain the observations based on prior knowledge and then you test your hypothesis with new observations. Ideally you look for observations that allow you to refute your hypothesis (because refutation is more secure than positive proof). If you can't find evidence to refute your hypothesis, you adopt it, provisionally, until such time as you have sufficient evidence to support it with good certainty, or until you have found evidence against it.

In your example, the initial observation is the broken window. The prior knowledge is that branches keep falling off and scratching the car. The hypothesis is that a branch fell and broke the car window. The second observation that tests the hypothesis is that there is no fallen branch around the car. This observation refutes the hypothesis. Then the scientist is free to go looking for additional observations and form a new hypothesis: the kids playing baseball nearby are the new observation. The next hypothesis is that they broke the window.

This process actually works very well in most situations where we have uncertainty and need an explanation, be it in the sciences or everyday world. I think you assume it's just some idealised version of "science" in the broad, but it's actually the most solid form of empirical reasoning we know of.

[hypnotortoise]

If an offender removes key elements from your observation (or in the example adding a branch beside the scientists car) you will not even consider to form a new hypothesis? That's quite convenient for those kids.