That's a kind of dangerous line of thinking.

It's impossible to prove that it was not grown in a lab, which is why the burden is to show that it _was_ grown in a lab. Until we have that, we shouldn't be sharing stories about how it _might_ have been grown in a lab.

I don't think it's "dangerous" to acknowledge that it is possible the Coronavirus was grown in a lab.

It is extremely unlikely that the virus was grown in a lab, because it's unlikely anyone has the technology to create a virus quite like this one.

The last decade has given us some pretty good illustrations of how it can be dangerous to give credence to baseless conspiracy theories.

Logically and epistemically sound thinking is what the world needs more of, not less.

I presume you're not a big fan of conspiracy theories - well, a big part of where they come from is the media doing something similar to what you're complaining about, stating what might be true, as unequivocally true. It would also be interesting to know how much of the polarization in society can be attributed to the fantasy world the media projects into people's minds using these techniques.

You have it backwards. That would prove that it was made in a lab. How do you prove that it wasn't made in a lab?

Ohhh ad hominem attacks and implying that people who disagree with you are bots.

So what you said literally does not make sense. I think you are saying that there are long subsections of genetic sequences that are used as markers? But as you have not actually cited anything we only have a one sentence explanation of your understand of something. Long is ambiguous, as is not found in nature. Hell even markers can be vague.

Long sequences of genes not found in nature would be evidence that it is a lab-grown virus, but how could you prove that it is NOT a lab-grown virus? The absence of those genes doesn't prove that it wasn't made by a very clever lab.

I understand your point but don’t see how it relates to the example we were discussing which has a paper discussing its markers.

Numerous research studies talking about the non natural sequences of marker genes

Sooo the irony of responding to [citation needed] with claims that there infact multiple unnamed studies is just lost on you I take?

I’ll share whatever stories I please.

The probabilistic model of knowledge as just a collection of hypotheses that have failed to have been falsified over sufficient testing is the dominant epistemological view today in empirical sciences. Knowing = Probably Is. It's just a matter of degree, so making the statement "it is not true that we know that, but it probably is the case" is ill-formed in the absence of consistent belief thresholds.

Normally I wouldn't say anything, but you did pull a "well, actually" there, so out-pedantifying seems warranted if only for the humour of the situation.

There's plenty of evidence it is not lab made.

There's some evidence that is suggestive, but far from what anyone knowledgeable would consider proof.

If you are going to be pedantic, there is no such thing as 'proof' at all. You can only ever demonstrate that you are 9X% likely to be correct.

Maybe the murder caught on camera is a lost identical twin, or victim of a very elaborate frame-up. The standard for conviction is beyong reasonable doubt. What is reasonable?

Maybe we have laws of physics wrong, and next tuesday sun will rise in the west, and Jesus rises from the dead. Again.

Do yoy trust governments and scientists? They used to claik smoking is a great way to get your essential vitamins.

Do you trust your own mind, because research has shown people can be manipulated into remembering things that never happened.

Ib radical doubt, the only thing you can proove is 'I think, therefore I am".

> but far from what anyone knowledgeable would consider proof.

Which is why the comment said "evidence" and not "proof".

So then just give voice to unsubstantiated rumors that contraindicate what we see in the genetic marker?

Also I'd like to contest that the nature study is "suggestive" that its not man made. Finding Elvis dead in Vegas is not "suggestive" that Elvis is dead.

If you are asking me to proof a negative, that's virtually impossible.

Read the Nature paper.