Does anyone know if there's been any version of this debate that excludes from consideration any evidence whose chain of custody includes the CCP? In other words, only takes into account evidence known or developed independently of CCP influence?
And wouldn't this be the only logical approach to take here? Any other approach assumes implicitly that the CCP is either too honest, or unable, to doctor the evidence to favor of its own "acquittal" here ("acquittal" in terms of a human role, intentional or accidental, vs. just an accident of nature). Is there anyone who actually believes that?
I apologize for my laziness, as I'm sure I could find the answer in the debate, but what % of the evidence presented related to the "result of GoF vs natural" question, and what % to the "lab leak/transmission by researchers vs non-research related infection" question?
The reason I ask is because I care mostly about what future policy should be, rather than specific blame for a specific viral outbreak. If experts tell me that the data supports zoonotic transmission without GoF, then I accept that. But that does not exclude "a viral researcher went out into the field and contracted (or brought a sample of) a natural virus, then transmitted (or it escaped from the lab) it to other humans in their city."
Where might I go to find similarly (for better or worse!) conclusive information on:
- Given that lab leaks have happened before, are current lab safety standards at labs with highly contagious diseases good enough?
- Is there any research (under whatever official technical description) being done that enhances viral contagiousness or deadliness, that is being done at places with insufficient lab safety?
- what steps were taken by any country/organizations to bias the lab leak debate in a way that, regardless of how it affected "blame" in either direction, reduced our/public health authorities ability to research/fight an outbreak, and how would we prevent those actions in the future?
- given that 1) natural viruses are acquired, 2) research (purposeful or accidental) to make them more effective (in the lab) does happen and 3) lab leaks have happened: we know that the original conspiracy theory is not impossible, even if we conclude that it did not happen in this case. So in general, what are we doing about, as a matter of policy? It would be most disappointing if we use "covid wasn't a GoF lab leak" as a reason to not pursue other helpful policy improvements related to the question.
I think Saar did point out real issues with the debate format they chose. Miller would have won even more decisively in that case, so Saar is (again) kidding himself to think that they would've won under a debate format that addressed the issues he mentions.
The creator of Rootclaim losing $100K using it is one of the best possible arguments that could have been made in favor of the format's credibility. Saar should lead with that every time he challenges someone to another.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees. There were almost immediate responses in early 2020 by government officials, media outlets, and many scientists, that it was not a lab leak yet with minimal evidence at that time. That was the main driver of skepticism as have many proclamations about "following the science" since then. That and, oh yeah, Chinese officials.
Interesting. And informative, as I have not seen the results of this 18-hour debate posted anywhere else. (Maybe it's all over Twitter/X, but I don't go there.) Thanks for the detailed report.
Saar Wilf was indeed hoist by his own Rootclaim petard. That's irony for you. But I, like you, don't think debates help to settle an issue like the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. Even with smart debaters, debates can entertain, but do little to illuminate. Much like political debates, they are full of sound and fury, but it signifies nothing. Few people who watch political debates change their minds, and those that do, change them for the wrong reasons.
Any ideas on how to move forward the origins investigation using a process that is better than debates? Your careful and thorough writings are a great help, but they leave some questions unanswered.
So I’ve been on the sidelines of this debate for a while. It sounds like the judges bought the theory that Wuhan animal market was the start of the pandemic. I’ve seen Jesse Bloom say that this isn’t possible because evidence supports human cases which precede the market outbreak in time. Is there a case against this idea that I’m not familiar with?
As someone in the academic sphere I have often doubted my experience and expertise, but then I read about puffed-up self-appointed "geniuses" straying onto my turf and I just can't stop laughing.
Bravo! This is a well-reasoned piece. Giant thanks to Peter Miller for his courage and brilliance in his almost quixotic quest to counter the lab leak theory, and to you for your detailed and well-argued piece in support of the fairness of the outcome of the debate. I am also grateful to the judges for so generously dedicating much time and energy to ensuring a professional process for the debate.
You still generally underestimate the power of the right type of adjudicators in a debate like this if your final position is to still advocate against such debates. If the judges are made of the right stuff (morally and mentally), and the facts (hence, truth) are clearly mostly aligned on one side, why on earth should you ever think it is possible for the mistaken side to carry the day? As Peter himself said, he'd have pulled out if he had not seen that the evidences were heavily tilted to his side of the argument and if he had not been co-instrumental in selecting a pair of competent, unbiased, and conflict-of-interest-free judges. If these pre-conditions and more are met, would it still be sensible to continue to argue against the value of debunking pseudoscience and popular conspiracy theories?
Does anyone know if there's been any version of this debate that excludes from consideration any evidence whose chain of custody includes the CCP? In other words, only takes into account evidence known or developed independently of CCP influence?
And wouldn't this be the only logical approach to take here? Any other approach assumes implicitly that the CCP is either too honest, or unable, to doctor the evidence to favor of its own "acquittal" here ("acquittal" in terms of a human role, intentional or accidental, vs. just an accident of nature). Is there anyone who actually believes that?
I apologize for my laziness, as I'm sure I could find the answer in the debate, but what % of the evidence presented related to the "result of GoF vs natural" question, and what % to the "lab leak/transmission by researchers vs non-research related infection" question?
The reason I ask is because I care mostly about what future policy should be, rather than specific blame for a specific viral outbreak. If experts tell me that the data supports zoonotic transmission without GoF, then I accept that. But that does not exclude "a viral researcher went out into the field and contracted (or brought a sample of) a natural virus, then transmitted (or it escaped from the lab) it to other humans in their city."
Where might I go to find similarly (for better or worse!) conclusive information on:
- Given that lab leaks have happened before, are current lab safety standards at labs with highly contagious diseases good enough?
- Is there any research (under whatever official technical description) being done that enhances viral contagiousness or deadliness, that is being done at places with insufficient lab safety?
- what steps were taken by any country/organizations to bias the lab leak debate in a way that, regardless of how it affected "blame" in either direction, reduced our/public health authorities ability to research/fight an outbreak, and how would we prevent those actions in the future?
- given that 1) natural viruses are acquired, 2) research (purposeful or accidental) to make them more effective (in the lab) does happen and 3) lab leaks have happened: we know that the original conspiracy theory is not impossible, even if we conclude that it did not happen in this case. So in general, what are we doing about, as a matter of policy? It would be most disappointing if we use "covid wasn't a GoF lab leak" as a reason to not pursue other helpful policy improvements related to the question.
I think Saar did point out real issues with the debate format they chose. Miller would have won even more decisively in that case, so Saar is (again) kidding himself to think that they would've won under a debate format that addressed the issues he mentions.
The creator of Rootclaim losing $100K using it is one of the best possible arguments that could have been made in favor of the format's credibility. Saar should lead with that every time he challenges someone to another.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees. There were almost immediate responses in early 2020 by government officials, media outlets, and many scientists, that it was not a lab leak yet with minimal evidence at that time. That was the main driver of skepticism as have many proclamations about "following the science" since then. That and, oh yeah, Chinese officials.
Interesting. And informative, as I have not seen the results of this 18-hour debate posted anywhere else. (Maybe it's all over Twitter/X, but I don't go there.) Thanks for the detailed report.
Saar Wilf was indeed hoist by his own Rootclaim petard. That's irony for you. But I, like you, don't think debates help to settle an issue like the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. Even with smart debaters, debates can entertain, but do little to illuminate. Much like political debates, they are full of sound and fury, but it signifies nothing. Few people who watch political debates change their minds, and those that do, change them for the wrong reasons.
Any ideas on how to move forward the origins investigation using a process that is better than debates? Your careful and thorough writings are a great help, but they leave some questions unanswered.
So I’ve been on the sidelines of this debate for a while. It sounds like the judges bought the theory that Wuhan animal market was the start of the pandemic. I’ve seen Jesse Bloom say that this isn’t possible because evidence supports human cases which precede the market outbreak in time. Is there a case against this idea that I’m not familiar with?
As someone in the academic sphere I have often doubted my experience and expertise, but then I read about puffed-up self-appointed "geniuses" straying onto my turf and I just can't stop laughing.
Bravo! This is a well-reasoned piece. Giant thanks to Peter Miller for his courage and brilliance in his almost quixotic quest to counter the lab leak theory, and to you for your detailed and well-argued piece in support of the fairness of the outcome of the debate. I am also grateful to the judges for so generously dedicating much time and energy to ensuring a professional process for the debate.
Great article. Well researched. Thank you.
You still generally underestimate the power of the right type of adjudicators in a debate like this if your final position is to still advocate against such debates. If the judges are made of the right stuff (morally and mentally), and the facts (hence, truth) are clearly mostly aligned on one side, why on earth should you ever think it is possible for the mistaken side to carry the day? As Peter himself said, he'd have pulled out if he had not seen that the evidences were heavily tilted to his side of the argument and if he had not been co-instrumental in selecting a pair of competent, unbiased, and conflict-of-interest-free judges. If these pre-conditions and more are met, would it still be sensible to continue to argue against the value of debunking pseudoscience and popular conspiracy theories?