Great article again. I was under the belief that Biden was supposed to be a one term president but obviously I was wrong. I felt so disheartened after watching the debate that we didn’t renew our annual travel insurance and are just getting it one trip at a time to travel to the US. Still hoping for the best but planning for the worst.
I do not enjoy WWN or anything like it. Justin, if you do like that stuff, do not read Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World". That was the world when there was nothing BUT the equivalent of WWN - news was altered for maximum interest and enjoyment, so the tale-teller would get another beer. A world of superstition, lives lost from ignorance, paranoia.
That's still the problem with "journalism" versus "science". Scientists have learned from bitter experience that you let the data lead, and be humble with your theory in the face of data. Journalists like to find a narrative and stick to it, pretty much like a medieval jongleur enriching the tales from the next shire. (Right-wing journalists are still sticking to the "trickle down" narrative, the underlying prior assumption in all their analysis.)
I think a scientist would sign off on the high probability that whether the virus got loose in Wuhan because it leaked out of a lab, or got loose in Wuhan because it came out of a wet market ... it got loose FROM Wuhan, into the world (unlike SARS being contained in Toronto!) because of the secrecy, desire to cover-up, and suppression of medical response, by the current Wuhan and China governments. It's their fault, either way. So the question is frankly boring.
Biden is almost certainly the same guy that gave an interview to TIME.com at the end of May, and will probably repeat that feat tonight on ABC. The rest is imposed narrative. Biden does need, preferably tonight, to say that he can't work nights any more, should mostly stick to a 40-hour work week. Then say that this should be enough, with good staff work - that other presidents besides Reagan and Trump only worked about 20 hours of real, non-schmoozing work in a week.
I absolutely agree that the question of origins is mostly boring — either way, it should behoove us to get cracking on preventing the next coronavirus epidemic. We're onto 3 over the past two decades, and I suspect we've got more to come.
It was funny, I was having dinner with friends last night, one of whom reads this newsletter. He starts talking about how wild it is that we spent so long denying the lab leak theory because it's now been confirmed. I, confused, say: but...it hasn't been. It's still very unlikely. Him and his partner look at me befuddled. "But the New York Times said it's been confirmed!"
So, yeah, media does love a narrative. And people pick up on the topline, even when we try desperately to shove in all the nuance below.
Good piece, lots to think about. Admitting mistakes is hard to do, especially when you know that admission will be capitalized on.
currently been thinking a lot about the value of oral history (the story’s we tell our selves about our selves and our cultures) when we know that memory is unreliable.
but I really just came to say that Laura Jane Grace (Against Me) is gem. I have been an Against Me fan for 20+ years. Her solo show at the Ricksaw a few years ago, mid pandemic, was perfection. You reminded me to check out her Tiny Desk Concert.
I was never a huge Against Me fan — mostly just went a different direction with my punk tastes — but recently picked up that album again and have been really, really digging it. And I do love that tiny desk
Thank you again with your generous wit within serious times. I’m still pondering still getting peeved still appreciating your ability to debate ( in true debate form) your own writing, Worth the read always.
On a scale where one end is deemed false and the other is deemed true, what influences where on the scale we position the 'information'?
Here's a question that is not intended to be answered, but should be enlightening. Try to glimpse what is your inclination to answer before you start to rationalize an answer:
Imagine you are travelling to a city in a foreign country where you have never been before, and want to go to a particular place. You come to a branch in the road where 2 people are standing. One seems to be wearing what might be considered a uniform of some sort. You ask which way to go and you get 2 different answers. Which way do you go?
******************
If a version of events is presented to you by office-holders and media companies with large staffs and broadcast/publishing capability, and another version is presented by a small number with an opposing view, which do you label as misinformation?
I actually really like that question. (God, do I have to go and pull some old Descartes off the shelf?)
To my mind, we should only be trying to disrupt/vanquish/admonish/whatever-verb-you-want misinformation that clearly and squarely sits on the 'demonstrably untrue' end of this informational scale. Everything short of that is a matter of debate, and doesn't benefit from finger-wagging.
(Also, I believe in your riddle, I'm supposed to ask "which of you tells the truth?")
No, don't go paging through Descartes. My point is that he never got past "Cogito ergo sum". That is, we don't "know" anything (other than that we exist).
There is no intended answer to the riddle. I just wanted people to identify their first inclination on which person to believe. Myself, I am for a microsecond inclined to go with the uniformed person before my logical brain kicks in and says there is no way to know the right answer. (Doesn't our emotional brain react quicker than our logical one?)
Is that because humans are social animals and naturally seek out and defer to leaders, or is it because we have been programmed since birth to obey?
Anyway, we appear to be susceptible to suggestion, and "misinformation" is designated by those with what we perceive to be the most impressive podium.
I sadly agree with you Justin Ling that the Biden people should have honestly tackled the age issue immediately after the debate. Have you an idea what could've been said? Or done? I got nothin', and that's why I'd be a terrible spin-doctor. As it is, while not exactly losing sleep, I'm dreading a republican win in the fall.
"We’ve largely given up on fighting back against this theory. The other side, meanwhile, has done victory laps, insisting it exposes the inherent unreliability of us informational gatekeepers. They’re not altogether wrong."
Yeah, but did the other other side not actively coordinate behind closed doors to suppress the lab leak theory, as well as their involvement in various gain of function studies that they funded in China and the WIV? There were seemingly bad faith actors on both sides pushing for and against the lab leak theory, and of course in the end neither did their side much favors and combined only helped to further sow distrust.
Pretty sure I read elsewhere that Daszak lead or at least participated in a private chat group or something to that effect where he and others were coordinating talking points to portray anyone looking into the lab leak theory as a vicious racist. It was extremely greasy.
For my part, I'm pretty much 50/50 on which one it is.
I could probably go ahead and write a whole other thing specifically on the lab leak stuff (I've been meaning to...) but the crux of my argument would be: Trying to suppress a belief doesn't mean that belief is de facto true.
I've followed all that EcoHealth/Daszak stuff pretty closely (and have spoken to some of the players involved) and I'm pretty confident that, whatever theory is true, they weren't trying to cover anything up, they were trying to defend against these bad faith actors who came for them very quickly, without any real evidence.
And in the process, yes, they wound up doing a bunch of things that tamped down on open debate, and tried to shut down questioning of the official narrative. That absolutely drove distrust. But I think they were doing it in hopes that it would guard against those efforts — and I think it backfired.
If we accept the zoonotic origins theory (which I do, and would put the odds more like 95/5 in favor of it) then Daszak, for whatever misdeeds he did after COVID emerged, helped drive some of the only serious coronavirus research happening in the world in the years prior to 2019. We can point to the research he was contributing to at the WIV for why we got testing done so quickly, why the Moderna vaccine was ready to go so quickly, and why we had a head start on understanding the virus' behavior. (This, largely because they recognized MERS had pandemic potential, but that it was just sliiiightly maladapted.)
Yes, thanks, just read it. I think you're giving way too much benefit of the doubt to Daszak and I very much disagree with your conclusion that we shouldn't be casting "aspersions" on virologists. Not when some of those virologists participated in a coordinated campaign to suppress the lab leak theory in an effort to cover their own asses, shoddy paperwork and in some cases their own ignorance about what exactly was going on at the WIV. Some of it's defenders apparently weren't even aware that they were using live bats at the lab.
Oh just to be clear, criticize away. I would just say that it's wrong to criticize them as though the lab leak theory has been proven true, because it certainly hasn't. I think that's what some bad faith actors are doing.
Please do write something about the lab leak theory now. Mostly, people need to be comfortable with imprecision and not knowing the truth. That’s just not a comfortable place for most people to be in.
"The subcommittee also sharply criticized Daszak’s involvement in a 2020 letter published in a leading British medical journal, The Lancet. The letter, signed by 27 top scientists, received heavy coverage and served to tamp down speculation about a “lab leak.” In it, Daszak and the others wrote, “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” Though an organizer of the letter, Daszak, for some time considered not signing it, according to the Democratic report, so that it wouldn’t “link back to our collaboration.” Initially he didn’t disclose his work on bat coronavirus research in China, and after being requested to do so, he didn’t mention his work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology."
Dude acted shady as hell, because he was covering his own ass.
Great article again. I was under the belief that Biden was supposed to be a one term president but obviously I was wrong. I felt so disheartened after watching the debate that we didn’t renew our annual travel insurance and are just getting it one trip at a time to travel to the US. Still hoping for the best but planning for the worst.
I do not enjoy WWN or anything like it. Justin, if you do like that stuff, do not read Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World". That was the world when there was nothing BUT the equivalent of WWN - news was altered for maximum interest and enjoyment, so the tale-teller would get another beer. A world of superstition, lives lost from ignorance, paranoia.
That's still the problem with "journalism" versus "science". Scientists have learned from bitter experience that you let the data lead, and be humble with your theory in the face of data. Journalists like to find a narrative and stick to it, pretty much like a medieval jongleur enriching the tales from the next shire. (Right-wing journalists are still sticking to the "trickle down" narrative, the underlying prior assumption in all their analysis.)
I think a scientist would sign off on the high probability that whether the virus got loose in Wuhan because it leaked out of a lab, or got loose in Wuhan because it came out of a wet market ... it got loose FROM Wuhan, into the world (unlike SARS being contained in Toronto!) because of the secrecy, desire to cover-up, and suppression of medical response, by the current Wuhan and China governments. It's their fault, either way. So the question is frankly boring.
Biden is almost certainly the same guy that gave an interview to TIME.com at the end of May, and will probably repeat that feat tonight on ABC. The rest is imposed narrative. Biden does need, preferably tonight, to say that he can't work nights any more, should mostly stick to a 40-hour work week. Then say that this should be enough, with good staff work - that other presidents besides Reagan and Trump only worked about 20 hours of real, non-schmoozing work in a week.
I absolutely agree that the question of origins is mostly boring — either way, it should behoove us to get cracking on preventing the next coronavirus epidemic. We're onto 3 over the past two decades, and I suspect we've got more to come.
It was funny, I was having dinner with friends last night, one of whom reads this newsletter. He starts talking about how wild it is that we spent so long denying the lab leak theory because it's now been confirmed. I, confused, say: but...it hasn't been. It's still very unlikely. Him and his partner look at me befuddled. "But the New York Times said it's been confirmed!"
So, yeah, media does love a narrative. And people pick up on the topline, even when we try desperately to shove in all the nuance below.
"Scientists have learned from bitter experience that you let the data lead"
Yeah, nothing can erase an ego like physics and logic can!
Good piece, lots to think about. Admitting mistakes is hard to do, especially when you know that admission will be capitalized on.
currently been thinking a lot about the value of oral history (the story’s we tell our selves about our selves and our cultures) when we know that memory is unreliable.
but I really just came to say that Laura Jane Grace (Against Me) is gem. I have been an Against Me fan for 20+ years. Her solo show at the Ricksaw a few years ago, mid pandemic, was perfection. You reminded me to check out her Tiny Desk Concert.
https://youtu.be/DYDLYlhvJho?si=fD8lVCA9KPuTtoJQ
I was never a huge Against Me fan — mostly just went a different direction with my punk tastes — but recently picked up that album again and have been really, really digging it. And I do love that tiny desk
Thanks for reading!
Thank you again with your generous wit within serious times. I’m still pondering still getting peeved still appreciating your ability to debate ( in true debate form) your own writing, Worth the read always.
Descartes redux.
On a scale where one end is deemed false and the other is deemed true, what influences where on the scale we position the 'information'?
Here's a question that is not intended to be answered, but should be enlightening. Try to glimpse what is your inclination to answer before you start to rationalize an answer:
Imagine you are travelling to a city in a foreign country where you have never been before, and want to go to a particular place. You come to a branch in the road where 2 people are standing. One seems to be wearing what might be considered a uniform of some sort. You ask which way to go and you get 2 different answers. Which way do you go?
******************
If a version of events is presented to you by office-holders and media companies with large staffs and broadcast/publishing capability, and another version is presented by a small number with an opposing view, which do you label as misinformation?
I actually really like that question. (God, do I have to go and pull some old Descartes off the shelf?)
To my mind, we should only be trying to disrupt/vanquish/admonish/whatever-verb-you-want misinformation that clearly and squarely sits on the 'demonstrably untrue' end of this informational scale. Everything short of that is a matter of debate, and doesn't benefit from finger-wagging.
(Also, I believe in your riddle, I'm supposed to ask "which of you tells the truth?")
No, don't go paging through Descartes. My point is that he never got past "Cogito ergo sum". That is, we don't "know" anything (other than that we exist).
There is no intended answer to the riddle. I just wanted people to identify their first inclination on which person to believe. Myself, I am for a microsecond inclined to go with the uniformed person before my logical brain kicks in and says there is no way to know the right answer. (Doesn't our emotional brain react quicker than our logical one?)
Is that because humans are social animals and naturally seek out and defer to leaders, or is it because we have been programmed since birth to obey?
Anyway, we appear to be susceptible to suggestion, and "misinformation" is designated by those with what we perceive to be the most impressive podium.
I sadly agree with you Justin Ling that the Biden people should have honestly tackled the age issue immediately after the debate. Have you an idea what could've been said? Or done? I got nothin', and that's why I'd be a terrible spin-doctor. As it is, while not exactly losing sleep, I'm dreading a republican win in the fall.
Welcome to Night Vale.
Their Welcome to Nightvale book is a real treat. I weirdly think their vibe translates better to text than audio.
"We’ve largely given up on fighting back against this theory. The other side, meanwhile, has done victory laps, insisting it exposes the inherent unreliability of us informational gatekeepers. They’re not altogether wrong."
Yeah, but did the other other side not actively coordinate behind closed doors to suppress the lab leak theory, as well as their involvement in various gain of function studies that they funded in China and the WIV? There were seemingly bad faith actors on both sides pushing for and against the lab leak theory, and of course in the end neither did their side much favors and combined only helped to further sow distrust.
See here: https://www.science.org/content/article/federal-officials-suspend-funding-ecohealth-alliance-nonprofit-entangled-covid-19
Pretty sure I read elsewhere that Daszak lead or at least participated in a private chat group or something to that effect where he and others were coordinating talking points to portray anyone looking into the lab leak theory as a vicious racist. It was extremely greasy.
For my part, I'm pretty much 50/50 on which one it is.
I could probably go ahead and write a whole other thing specifically on the lab leak stuff (I've been meaning to...) but the crux of my argument would be: Trying to suppress a belief doesn't mean that belief is de facto true.
I've followed all that EcoHealth/Daszak stuff pretty closely (and have spoken to some of the players involved) and I'm pretty confident that, whatever theory is true, they weren't trying to cover anything up, they were trying to defend against these bad faith actors who came for them very quickly, without any real evidence.
And in the process, yes, they wound up doing a bunch of things that tamped down on open debate, and tried to shut down questioning of the official narrative. That absolutely drove distrust. But I think they were doing it in hopes that it would guard against those efforts — and I think it backfired.
If we accept the zoonotic origins theory (which I do, and would put the odds more like 95/5 in favor of it) then Daszak, for whatever misdeeds he did after COVID emerged, helped drive some of the only serious coronavirus research happening in the world in the years prior to 2019. We can point to the research he was contributing to at the WIV for why we got testing done so quickly, why the Moderna vaccine was ready to go so quickly, and why we had a head start on understanding the virus' behavior. (This, largely because they recognized MERS had pandemic potential, but that it was just sliiiightly maladapted.)
Anyway, I could rant about this for ages. I actually just penned a recent column for the Star on this: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/what-were-still-getting-wrong-about-the-origins-of-covid-19/article_2300bb66-24e1-11ef-aa69-b3b079f7ab71.html
Yes, thanks, just read it. I think you're giving way too much benefit of the doubt to Daszak and I very much disagree with your conclusion that we shouldn't be casting "aspersions" on virologists. Not when some of those virologists participated in a coordinated campaign to suppress the lab leak theory in an effort to cover their own asses, shoddy paperwork and in some cases their own ignorance about what exactly was going on at the WIV. Some of it's defenders apparently weren't even aware that they were using live bats at the lab.
https://x.com/zeynep/status/1790803102070718606
https://x.com/KatherineEban/status/1790801572047282446
Oh just to be clear, criticize away. I would just say that it's wrong to criticize them as though the lab leak theory has been proven true, because it certainly hasn't. I think that's what some bad faith actors are doing.
Please do write something about the lab leak theory now. Mostly, people need to be comfortable with imprecision and not knowing the truth. That’s just not a comfortable place for most people to be in.
Ah, here it is: https://thebulletin.org/2024/05/republicans-and-democrats-investigating-the-origins-of-covid-19-find-a-common-target-peter-daszak/
"The subcommittee also sharply criticized Daszak’s involvement in a 2020 letter published in a leading British medical journal, The Lancet. The letter, signed by 27 top scientists, received heavy coverage and served to tamp down speculation about a “lab leak.” In it, Daszak and the others wrote, “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” Though an organizer of the letter, Daszak, for some time considered not signing it, according to the Democratic report, so that it wouldn’t “link back to our collaboration.” Initially he didn’t disclose his work on bat coronavirus research in China, and after being requested to do so, he didn’t mention his work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology."
Dude acted shady as hell, because he was covering his own ass.