Yes. The fear of impending doom has subsided.So, three years later, millions of deaths, billions in economic losses, the public is more open to the opinion than it would have been when this was fresh?
Yes. The fear of impending doom has subsided.So, three years later, millions of deaths, billions in economic losses, the public is more open to the opinion than it would have been when this was fresh?
If reports from the beginning of covid are true much information was deliberately suppressed. Pete probably has the best answer as to why. Of course we don't yet know how much WEF and WHO had in suppressing facts to push their ideals.So, three years later, millions of deaths, billions in economic losses, the public is more open to the opinion than it would have been when this was fresh?
So is it new information at this point in time (?) or looking at the same old information with todays eyes?
I think T-bones is right on this. People who say things like "Evolution is just a theory" are generally religious types trying to dismiss it as unverified speculation, in the mistaken belief that's all theory means. Both evolution and gravity are theories in the scientific sense, and they're also both facts, their effects are observed. The observable facts are what the theories are based on, the theories are the ideas and analyses we've come up with to organize, explain, and give meaning to the facts. For example, the law of gravity in Newton's world is that all masses attract each other with a force determined by their masses and the inverse square of the distance between them, that's the basic theoretical idea and it's not quite correct, though it's close enough to reality for most purposes. Einstein's basic theoretical idea is that masses create curvatures in space-time and moving bodies follow those curves, which gives more accurate results at the cost of a great increase in computational complexity. Except in extreme conditions it's seldom worth doing, almost nobody routinely uses it to calculate satellite or planetary orbits, though it IS necessary to correctly describe Mercury's orbit and keep the GPS systems working accurately because of gravity's effects on clocks. For evolution, the key theoretical idea is descent with modification, every individual organism is slightly different from all others and environmental influences are observed to favour and preserve certain of those differences, so over long time periods organisms change. There is no useful alternative theory as there is with Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity.Not quite. There's the Law of Gravity which elegantly explains how it works. Then there's the Theory of Gravity which still seeks to explain what gravity actually is
I can't remember where I read a report from some European Scientists - I'm thinking it was in mid-late 2020 - that said they could not replicate the virus from "natural" sources so it was likely man-made since there was nothing in nature that would produce this type of virus. So it's likely that it's been known all along that it was a lab leak but they were silenced because it went against the narrative. So, I'm not surprised at all that it was from the lab.If the truth came out front and center in January 2020 there would have been no shortage lynch mobs.
The issue is not only the acquisition of new information that changes things but the "hiding" of said new information if it goes against the narrative.Both. It seems fairly obvious to me that the acquisition of new information causes re-evaluation of the information previously in hand in light of the new information.
There were oodles who put samples into analytical cassettes and found no natural structure. Testing is cheap and easy these days and it's just as easy to sample AND code human DNA.I can't remember where I read a report from some European Scientists - I'm thinking it was in mid-late 2020 - that said they could not replicate the virus from "natural" sources so it was likely man-made since there was nothing in nature that would produce this type of virus. So it's likely that it's been known all along that it was a lab leak but they were silenced because it went against the narrative. So, I'm not surprised at all that it was from the lab.
Should have never voted him out , but that ship has sailed .Y'all really should re-elect Harper.
There also is no "Law of Gravity." There is an equation that has worked in all cases in which it has been tried, after apparent exceptions have been explained by intervening forces. It remains good until the day it no longer describes observed phenomena, just as the Newtonian "Laws" of motion remained good until they no longer described observed phenomena.I think T-bones is right on this. People who say things like "Evolution is just a theory" are generally religious types trying to dismiss it as unverified speculation, in the mistaken belief that's all theory means. Both evolution and gravity are theories in the scientific sense, and they're also both facts, their effects are observed. The observable facts are what the theories are based on, the theories are the ideas and analyses we've come up with to organize, explain, and give meaning to the facts. For example, the law of gravity in Newton's world is that all masses attract each other with a force determined by their masses and the inverse square of the distance between them, that's the basic theoretical idea and it's not quite correct, though it's close enough to reality for most purposes. Einstein's basic theoretical idea is that masses create curvatures in space-time and moving bodies follow those curves, which gives more accurate results at the cost of a great increase in computational complexity. Except in extreme conditions it's seldom worth doing, almost nobody routinely uses it to calculate satellite or planetary orbits, though it IS necessary to correctly describe Mercury's orbit and keep the GPS systems working accurately because of gravity's effects on clocks. For evolution, the key theoretical idea is descent with modification, every individual organism is slightly different from all others and environmental influences are observed to favour and preserve certain of those differences, so over long time periods organisms change. There is no useful alternative theory as there is with Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity.
I am of course oversimplifying a bit, and discounting religious explanations, they're not theories.
So, suddenly we trust the Biden government?The issue is not only the acquisition of new information that changes things but the "hiding" of said new information if it goes against the narrative.
Well yes, strictly speaking you're right in the usual meaning of law, which as a lawyer you presumably know something about. It's a poor choice of words, but its a convenient shorthand for the regularities we observe in how nature behaves. It's a lot quicker and easier to refer to the laws of nature than "the regularities we observe... etc."There also is no "Law of Gravity."
What was convenient shorthand is, sadly, now wielded as a rhetorical weapon by people who don't know the difference between semantics and facts.Well yes, strictly speaking you're right in the usual meaning of law, which as a lawyer you presumably know something about. It's a poor choice of words, but its a convenient shorthand for the regularities we observe in how nature behaves. It's a lot quicker and easier to refer to the laws of nature than "the regularities we observe... etc."
Of course not. And if intelligence ever finds out, it's unlikely they'll tell me and thee.But to return to the actual subject of this thread, I don't think we're ever going to know definitively whether it was a virus that got away from a Chinese lab or a natural product of evolutionary biology, it's too late. We can reasonably assume the Chinese will not be forthcoming if it *was* a leak, and it's now too late to gather the evidence for it anyway. We'd need evidence the virus was in the lab, tests of people who worked at the lab, tests of the animals in the market where it supposedly came from, at the time the infections began, to nail down its origin beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't have that data and are unlikely to get it.
No! Where did I say that?So, suddenly we trust the Biden government?
It was Biden's DOE that released the low-confidence findings you seem to be buying into.No! Where did I say that?
It was Biden's DOE that released the low-confidence findings you seem to be buying into.
I hope you're right.I read that to say they don't have anything important, so pretend we care about transparency.