For me Ralph Baric's 2024 test testimony moved the lab leak hypothesis to pretty likely.
大多数人认为Ralph Baric的证词不足以改变COVID-19起源的科学共识,但作者认为这一证词显著增加了实验室泄漏理论的可信度,这挑战了科学界对证据标准的普遍理解。
For me Ralph Baric's 2024 test testimony moved the lab leak hypothesis to pretty likely.
大多数人认为Ralph Baric的证词不足以改变COVID-19起源的科学共识,但作者认为这一证词显著增加了实验室泄漏理论的可信度,这挑战了科学界对证据标准的普遍理解。
Besançon, L., Peiffer-Smadja, N., Segalas, C., Jiang, H., Masuzzo, P., Smout, C., Billy, E., Deforet, M., & Leyrat, C. (2021). Open science saves lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21(1), 117. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y
Dr Nisreen Alwan 🌻. (2020, March 14). Our letter in the Times. ‘We request that the government urgently and openly share the scientific evidence, data and modelling it is using to inform its decision on the #Covid_19 public health interventions’ @richardhorton1 @miriamorcutt @devisridhar @drannewilson @PWGTennant https://t.co/YZamKCheXH [Tweet]. @Dr2NisreenAlwan. https://twitter.com/Dr2NisreenAlwan/status/1238726765469749248
Dr. Jonathan N. Stea. (2021, January 25). Covid-19 misinformation? We’re over it. Pseudoscience? Over it. Conspiracies? Over it. Want to do your part to amplify scientific expertise and evidence-based health information? Join us. 🇨🇦 Follow us @ScienceUpFirst. #ScienceUpFirst https://t.co/81iPxXXn4q. Https://t.co/mIcyJEsPXe [Tweet]. @jonathanstea. https://twitter.com/jonathanstea/status/1353705111671869440
Even if the Speculum was copied only in parts, Vincent of Beauvais exposed the reader to multiple opinions on any topic he discussed. Neither the concordance nor the encyclo-pedic compendium resolved the textual difficulties or contradictions that they helped bring to light. Vincent explicitly left to the reader the task of reaching a final conclusion amid the diversity of authoritative opinions that might exist on a question: “I am not unaware of the fact that philosophers have said many contradictory things, especially about the nature of things. . . . I warn the reader, lest he perhaps be horrified, if he finds some contradictions of this kind among the names of diverse authors in many places of this work, especially since I have acted in this work not as an author, but as an excerptor, that I did not try to reduce the sayings of the philosophers to agreement but report what each said or wrote on each thing; leaving to the judgment of the reader to decide which opinion to prefer.”161
Interesting that Vincent of Beauvais indicates that there were discrepancies between the authors, but leaves it up to the reader to decide for themself.
What would the reader do in these cases in a culture before the scientific method and the coming scientific revolutions? Does this statement prefigure the beginning of a cultural shift?
Are there other examples of (earlier) writers encouraging the the comparison of two different excerpts from "expert" or authoritative sources to determine which should have precedence?
What other methods would have encouraged this sort of behavior?
How cherry-picking science became the center of the anti-mask movement. (2022, February 14). Gothamist. https://gothamist.com
Prof. Gavin Yamey MD MPH. (2022, January 7). Thank you @j_g_allen for continuing to advocate for childhood vaccination & for sharing evidence on masks Yesterday, the U.S. saw a record number of COVID-19 pediatric hospital admissions, almost 1,000 Unvaxxed kids are 10 X more likely to be hospitalized than vaxxed kids 1/2 [Tweet]. @GYamey. https://twitter.com/GYamey/status/1479265484562386944
US, G. S., Barbara K. Hofer,The Conversation. (n.d.). Don’t Look Up Illustrates 5 Myths That Fuel Rejection of Science. Scientific American. Retrieved January 14, 2022, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dont-look-up-illustrates-5-myths-that-fuel-rejection-of-science/
Cutler, S. (2022, January 13). Cutting the Covid isolation period to five days is foolhardy and dangerous. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/13/cutting-covid-isolation-period-five-days-foolhardy-dangerous
•. (n.d.). NYC ER Doc Breaks Down How Omicron Affects the Boosted, Vaxxed and Unvaccinated. NBC New York. Retrieved January 13, 2022, from https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/nyc-er-doc-breaks-down-how-omicron-affects-the-boosted-vaxxed-and-unvaccinated/3468742/
Seth Trueger on Twitter: “@IdiotTracker @RyanMarino from the makers of ivermectin https://t.co/oEhAaWhqK3” / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved August 27, 2021, from https://twitter.com/MDaware/status/1404856892812316677
Pilditch, T. (2021). Why scientific evidence is no longer enough in public debate [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/98v2n
u/dawnlxh. (2021). Reviewing peer review: does the process need to change, and how?. r/BehSciAsk. Reddit
Health, A. G. D. of. (2021, March 13). COVID-19 vaccines – Is it true? [Text]. Australian Government Department of Health; Australian Government Department of Health. https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/covid-19-vaccines/is-it-true
Fact Check-COVID-19 vaccines are not ‘cytotoxic’ | Reuters. (n.d.). Retrieved June 25, 2021, from https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-cytotoxic/fact-check-covid-19-vaccines-are-not-cytotoxic-idUSL2N2O01XP
Maarten van Smeden. (2021, March 25). 🚨🚨NEW EVIDENCE PYRAMID🚨🚨 https://t.co/RnGfl337tD [Tweet]. @MaartenvSmeden. https://twitter.com/MaartenvSmeden/status/1375008127737851904
Hackathon: Climate denial and COVID-19 misinformation: birds of a feather? : BehSciAsk. (n.d.). Reddit. Retrieved 6 March 2021, from https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciAsk/comments/jjk00r/hackathon_climate_denial_and_covid19/
Schmid, P., Schwarzer, M., & Betsch, C. (n.d.). Weight-of-Evidence Strategies to Mitigate the Influence of Messages of Science Denialism in Public Discussions. Journal of Cognition, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.125
Brañas-Garza, P., Jorrat, D., Espín, A. M., & Sánchez, A. (2020). Paid and hypothetical time preferences are the same: Lab, field and online evidence. ArXiv:2010.09262 [Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.09262
Royal Statistical Society on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved October 25, 2020, from https://twitter.com/RoyalStatSoc/status/1317133702183456769
Reynolds, M. (2020, October 7). There is no ‘scientific divide’ over herd immunity. Wired UK. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/great-barrington-declaration-herd-immunity-scientific-divide
Cerase, A. (2020). From “good” intuitions to principled practices and beyond: Ethical issues in risk communication. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 508. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP508-2020-104
Vlasceanu, M., & Coman, A. (2020). The Impact of Social Norms on Belief Update [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gsem6
Scientist, N. (n.d.). How to sniff out the good coronavirus studies from the bad. New Scientist. Retrieved July 1, 2020, from https://www.newscientist.com/article/2242835-how-to-sniff-out-the-good-coronavirus-studies-from-the-bad/
r/BehSciResearch—New research project on managing disagreement. (n.d.). Reddit. Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciResearch/comments/hwjm0w/new_research_project_on_managing_disagreement/
Independent SAGE on Twitter: “NEW: Independent SAGE has evaluated the scientific evidence on social distancing & concludes it is not safe to reduce it from 2m to 1m indoors as government proposes https://t.co/GHgJ6SXW7C” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved June 22, 2020, from https://twitter.com/independentsage/status/1274727763786809344
Sample, I. (2020). Secrecy has harmed UK government's response to Covid-19 crisis, says top scientist. Retrieved 4 August 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/secrecy-has-harmed-uk-governments-response-to-covid-19-crisis-says-top-scientist
Travis Whitfill MPH on Twitter: “A quick visual aid of major studies & levels of evidence against #hydroxychloroquine for the use in COVID-19 patients. No robust studies have found any type of benefit for HCQ. https://t.co/YbSjvaoEoO” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved August 2, 2020, from https://twitter.com/twhitfill/status/1288825416975708161
Martin, G., Hanna, E., & Dingwall, R. (2020). Face masks for the public during Covid-19: An appeal for caution in policy [Preprint]. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/uyzxe
Mikolai, J., Keenan, K., & Kulu, H. (2020). Household level health and socio-economic vulnerabilities and the COVID-19 crisis: An analysis from the UK [Preprint]. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/4wtz8
Communicating statistics, risk and uncertainty in the age of Covid—Prof. David Spiegelhalter. (2020, June 30). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq7W1l7RptQ&feature=youtu.be
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S. A., Kotcher, J., Bergquist, P., Ballew, M. T., Goldberg, M. H., Gustafson, A., & Wang, X. (2020). Climate change in the American Mind: April 2020 [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8439q
Fontana, M., Iori, M., Montobbio, F., & Sinatra, R. (2020). New and atypical combinations: An assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity. Research Policy, 49(7), 104063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104063
Welcome! You are invited to join a webinar: COVID-19 Series: Medical journals - Episode 24. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email about joining the webinar. (n.d.). Zoom Video. Retrieved June 20, 2020, from https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_4_dGVRvDQEWi_d7ll7kMtQ
Evans, M. C., & Cvitanovic, C. (2018). An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0144-2
Kupferschmidt, K. (2020, May 11). U.K. government should not keep scientific advice secret, former chief adviser says. Science | AAAS. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/uk-government-should-not-keep-scientific-advice-secret-former-chief-adviser-says
Ricard, J., & Medeiros, J. (2020). Using Misinformation as a political weapon: COVID-19 and Bolsonaro in Brazil. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 2. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-013