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
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/
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.
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.
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)
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/
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/