Science is constantly evolving and the scientific literature gets updated when new evidence comes in.
So if you do not want to start out with your intuition, maybe check the status of current scientific literature science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
3/
Once a baseline of evidence and scientific thinking has been familiarized, it becomes way easier to spot where actual uncertainties lie.
This is then the basis for having more nuanced discussions with domain experts to deepen understanding.
4/
Once understanding has deepened, one might be able to engage with opposite viewpoints and hear out the strongest arguments.
In the case of lableak, many "smoking gun" arguments did not pass the sniff test. This is troublesome & should cause rethinking. medium.com/advances-in-bi…
5/
Obviously, a scientific questions needs a scientific answer, and it is hard not to get distracted by ultimately irrelevant speculations about cover-ups and conspiracies, when there is no evidence.
My #scicomm colleague @Samuel_Gregson and I spend hours interviewing experts who published on the origin question, and many experts were happy to explain their data and reasoning.
Here we talked to @K_G_Andersen and @MichaelWorobey about their work mapping the time, location, environmental samples, epidemiology and phylogeny to multiple #zoonotic spillovers in late November at the #Huanan market.
Here we talked to @cmmorel , a member of the WHO Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of pandemics, a group that is tasked with assessing the evidence for natural spillover vs #lableak (among other things)
The more we learned and talked to experts like @AliceCHughes , the more it became clear that #zoonotic spillover is an often underappreciated risk and all evidence points to SC2 being of unequivocal natural origin.
Given my personal preference to write things down to make sense of them, I collected all the input from scientists, domain experts and scientific papers to then form my own opinion on the topic and hopefully save everybody else some time 🔽 protagonistfuture.substack.com/p/natures-negl…
11/
While this has been an interesting journey towards epistemic clarity on the #lableak controversy, today I came to report that it was mostly for receiving online harassment.
See, scientists only know how to fight fictions with facts
And that is a disadvantage on social media
12/
Social media (and truly, more and more establish media too) is subjected to attention economy incentives, and that results in multiple #asymmetries of how information propagates & how we encounter, consume and use information.
Information has a special function in society...
13/
... it does not only inform our choices and beliefs, it also shapes our perception of reality.
Many of the frictions in today's connected online societies boil down to a fragmentation of our perception of reality, and these fragmented realities drive our epistemic crisis.
14/
(An epistemic crisis is a crisis where people lose the ability to assess what is real or true)
This epistemic crisis makes us incredibly vulnerable to the asymmetric forces, actors & behaviors that shape online conversations, and with it, empower engaging #conspiracy myths
15/
Understanding the appeal and power of #conspiracy myths is easy, combating them is incredibly hard when the deck is stacked against truth.
I mean, just look at the endless misses of #lableak claims versus the accumulating evidence for #zoonosis 🔽
Science deserves our trust 16/
I've been investigating how to even the information battle field for science. The sad reality is that there are no short-term solutions on offer.
That's why I said, the #lableak conspiracy myth will never die, much to the relief of people currently profiting of from it
17/
So while this is my frustrating preliminary assessment, I have no intention of #conceding reality to the malicious charlatans, shysters and political players profiting from the epistemic crisis, and neither should you.
It just means we have to take on a bigger challenge.
18/
A challenge to #reclaim our public spheres from tech giants, to treat information as a #public good and not a commodity, to fight asymmetric forces, actors and behaviors that poison our public good for personal gain.
How to do this will be my focus in the near future.
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is what the public often does not understand about #lableak conspiracism.
These malicious actors take stuff that is out in the open, decontextualize it, create convoluted fantasies, and then run with it instead of evidence, creating noise and doubt where there is none. 1/
Brandolini's law (also known as bullshit asymmetry) says that it takes about 10x more work to debunk made-up shit than it takes to actually make it up.
@flodebarre invested a lot of personal, unpaid time to look deeper into some of the #lableak myths
#lableak advocates misrepresent and (after correction by others) continue to deliberately lie to further their myth, while Shi Zhengli's statements have been independently verified to be truthful, again and again
Having lost the battle to sabotage scientific consensus formation for #zoonosis, LLs can only invoke 'research cartel' tropes & target individual scientists.
They hope people will not realize hundreds of scientists produced the evidence. 1/
The emergence of a scientific consensus is dependent on the body of scientific #evidence, and not on who has the loudest microphone.
There are dozens of papers with evidence directly related to the #origins question, and that evidence is created by hundreds of scientists from
2/
all over the world. Talking about a 'research cartel' or 'conspiracy' is a ridiculously stupid idea & should be laughed out of the room.
Unhappy to report that #lableak conspiracism is going down the exact same route as the tobacco industry
Here is a twist, I am getting the "@K_G_Andersen treatment". 😂😂
Stick around, it is a teaching lesson.
#Lableak trolls just realized that I thought a leak plausible when I entered the discussion right after the Nicholas Wade Op-ed, and think that is a 'gotcha'
1/
I have often proclaimed that I came late to the discussion, and also, that I was initially favoring #lableak, just based on my personal experience with how quickly lab accidents might happen.
When the Wade Op-ed hit, I thought well, respectable outlet, maybe its true? 2/
It certainly felt intuitive.
But here comes the lesson:
I did not want to leave it to my #intuition, I wanted to know the #truth.
Very soon (~2 weeks) after, I realized that the scientific #evidence tells a very different story, even at a time when uncertainty was higher. 3/
@janeqiuchina shows again a great sense of independent reporting on the origins; with a critical eye towards remaining uncertainties and of course the problematic nature of wildlife trade worldwide.
I have one little criticism about the room given to Kumar et al.'s study, 1/
which gives the (in my opinion) false impression that it is a coin-toss whether there were one or two zoonotic introductions. Scientific dissent does not imply that false equivalency.
Pekar vs Kumar phylogenetic methodologies are hard to compare because they do very different
2/
things, and one of the methods (Pekar) is clearly superior for the question at hand (rooting to identify ancestors) and consistent with all other evidence, whereas the other is not.
@Samuel_Gregson and I have talked to independent phylogenetic experts that were not involved
3/
2⃣ As with previous important publications about the origins topic, the first response from #conspiratorial thinkers is to ridicule, downplay and denigrate the studies and scientists involved (with absurd falsehoods and ad hominems)
2/
We have seen this pattern before, directed at independent scientists who contributed to the origins literature; and there are many
The goal of these personal attacks is to make life miserable for scientists who speak out, to get them to shut up or leave social media completely
3
Surprise surprise, the new paperback of their book is out and @mattwridley and @Ayjchan find it in their hearts to self-promote shamelessly once again by alarmist language, blatant lies, misrepresentations, and panic-mongering.
Let's have a look at the content, shall we? 1/
Matt and Alina like to paint themselves as 'the brave truthseekers' against the establishment, in order to position themselves like that, they have to tell some convenient lies, for example, that there is no 'real interest' by the establishment to investigate.
I'd like to see 2/
the evidence for that, because as far as I can tell, just last week they bragged about how EVERYBODY in the ESTABLISHMENT from WHO, US government to G7 is calling for investigations.
Certainly curious to frame this as 'interest disappeared, but good for book sales, I guess 3/