The phrase 'widely viewed' in the articles initial premise; "work which is now widely viewed as the source of the unintentional lab leak that sparked the pandemic" is doing some pretty heavy lifting.
Widely viewed by whom?
I have seen no supporting evidence that the professional scientific community, nor the international virus research community has anything approaching a large minority of consensus about this premise.
Widely viewed has no need to be based on any factual condition; many, many things which are widely viewed by the general population are patently absurd and factually disprovable - such as the idea that you are likely to win the national lottery if you just keep buying tickets, when the statistical probability of winning is nearly zero regardless of how frequently one plays.
A widely held view is, on average, less reliable to a significant factor, than just about anything. The act of the DNI publishing anything, regardless of it's importance or bearing, in terms of "widely viewed" puts the "Intelligence" part of the official agency name into significant doubtability.
Ad-hominem attacks against commentors, labeling them as 'uncurious' is also quite revealing. Is this 'story' a dog whistle that is only meant to reach the attention of the 'curious' but unscientifically reasoning audience?
Is the intent of posting links to spurious publications which do not actually present anything more scientifically than to quote vague, unnamed sources such as 'widely viewed' simply an appeal to the uninformable?
I think 'widely viewed by the loyal' is more accurate for the audience as interpreted by the poster.
stinkbeetle, welcome to my | hide | section, I have no more time for this level of credulity.
There are very good reasons, which anyone smart and open-minded can find out, to think that Covid didn’t come from the Institute. So why should we care about this news?
Lots of uncurious people don't care about understanding the world around them. This story probably isn't for them, and I'm certainly not here to try to change those kinds of attitudes.
The phrase 'widely viewed' in the articles initial premise; "work which is now widely viewed as the source of the unintentional lab leak that sparked the pandemic" is doing some pretty heavy lifting.
Widely viewed by whom?
I have seen no supporting evidence that the professional scientific community, nor the international virus research community has anything approaching a large minority of consensus about this premise.
Widely viewed has no need to be based on any factual condition; many, many things which are widely viewed by the general population are patently absurd and factually disprovable - such as the idea that you are likely to win the national lottery if you just keep buying tickets, when the statistical probability of winning is nearly zero regardless of how frequently one plays.
A widely held view is, on average, less reliable to a significant factor, than just about anything. The act of the DNI publishing anything, regardless of it's importance or bearing, in terms of "widely viewed" puts the "Intelligence" part of the official agency name into significant doubtability.
Ad-hominem attacks against commentors, labeling them as 'uncurious' is also quite revealing. Is this 'story' a dog whistle that is only meant to reach the attention of the 'curious' but unscientifically reasoning audience?
Is the intent of posting links to spurious publications which do not actually present anything more scientifically than to quote vague, unnamed sources such as 'widely viewed' simply an appeal to the uninformable?
I think 'widely viewed by the loyal' is more accurate for the audience as interpreted by the poster.
stinkbeetle, welcome to my | hide | section, I have no more time for this level of credulity.
I guess this kind of crackpot release is now par since it’s the US govt propagating it.
There are very good reasons, which anyone smart and open-minded can find out, to think that Covid didn’t come from the Institute. So why should we care about this news?
Lots of uncurious people don't care about understanding the world around them. This story probably isn't for them, and I'm certainly not here to try to change those kinds of attitudes.
That doesn’t answer my question, which was: why should curious people care?