Scientists only know how to fight #fictions with facts

And that is a dramatic #disadvantage on social media

My latest article is on the #asymmetric power that keeps the #lableak conspiracy myth alive despite mounting scientific evidence against it

1/
protagonistfuture.substack.com/p/a-tale-of-tw…
In the article, I explain why every time a new scientific report from experts comes out on the origins (like today 🔽), a social media machinery kicks into gear to defame & #harass scientists, push counter-narratives & #poison the infosphere

2/
pnas.org/doi/full/10.10…
This is no coincidence, but the inevitable outcome of our broken info sphere & #epistemic crisis.

A crisis where people lose the ability to assess what is real or true.

See, #information has a special function in society it does not only inform our choices and beliefs...

3/
...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 current #epistemic crisis.

4/
This epistemic crisis makes us incredibly vulnerable to the #asymmetric forces, actors & behaviors that shape online conversations, and with it, empower engaging #conspiracy myths over science.

Even worse, malicious actors can use #conspiracy myths for their strategic aims

5/ Image
Despite what you might have heard, seen, or read online, after 2+ years of research, we can say the #lableak theory is scientifically dead.

But the #lableak conspiracy myth is alive and well. And it likely will never go away.

theconversation.com/the-covid-lab-…
6/
No matter how much evidence scientists achieve to accumulate, no matter how bad the arguments for a #lableak, or how often the #conspiracy myth has to transform and shift goalposts, it is impossible to wake up #lableak influencers & grifters who only pretend to sleep.

7/ Image
That is the sad reality of our #information age.

More hopeful times would see the scientific process of slowly approximating more likely truths with #shared pride in our human #ingenuity.

Science has power too, the power to free us of false beliefs, no matter how popular...
8/
...but only if we let it.

I believe true #agency over our lives can only come from perceiving reality as it is, not from living in false #myths others have created for our shallow convenience (and their benefit)

And I certainly hope I am not alone

/end
protagonistfuture.substack.com/p/a-tale-of-tw…
Addition: Important and wonderful #scicomm thread from @PeterDaszak about the latest independent task force report on the origins of Covid.

Read the whole thing to get an intuition why emerging zoonotic disease experts are confident it was not a #lableak.
Here is also the medium version of the article with a friend link for free access!

medium.com/advances-in-bi…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Philipp Markolin, PhD

Philipp Markolin, PhD Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PhilippMarkolin

Oct 11
It gives me no pleasure to report that many science journalists, including very good ones, seem to still not have learned from history.

A thread about false equivalency reporting and how forced "neutrality" actually gives liars an asymmetric advantage in the information age.
1/
First, one clarification:
Factual reporting is good and being unbiased is good as well.

But being unbiased does not mean one has to be neutral and give equal weight when reporting about climate opinions given by for example the IPCC versus climate deniers.
2/
When the IPCC claims "climate change is real" but person X says "all the climate models are wrong", putting both opinions up as equal creates a FALSE EQUIVALENCY

The supposed "neutrality" of just reporting statements from both sides is often just a veneer to cover laziness
3/
Read 18 tweets
Oct 7
While the #lableak theory is scientifically dead, the lableak conspiracy myth will never die out.

This has everything to do with #asymmetric forces on social media, and the self-serving influencers and information combatants abusing them.

A thread:
1/ Image
How does one go about when trying to find out what is true in a world segmented by echo chambers and fragmented reality perceptions?

I cannot say that there is a formula, but I can share what steps I took.

When I started, I believed lableak likely..



2/
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/
Read 19 tweets
Oct 6
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

2/

The TL;DR for all of them is the same:

#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

3/
Read 7 tweets
Sep 18
Let me show you something & explain:

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

They invent conflicts of interest
3/
Read 13 tweets
Sep 8
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/ Image
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/ Image
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/ Image
Read 9 tweets
Jul 27
@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/
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(