Thank you for your response. However, I’m not sure why a reference to “omniscience” would lead you to think I believe in God. This strikes me as a leap of logic, which I would not expect from someone who appreciates rational debate.
In fact, I’m not the least bit religious. To be very clear, I actually said “Facts are in the eye of the beholder now” (emphasis on “now”). My reference to omniscience was directed to the increasing tendency of individuals and institutions to distort facts and data to suit their own agenda. You seem to acknowledge this possibility (“Some humans intentionally misrepresent data and some humans unintentionally misconstrue data”), but I think you may be minimizing this phenomenon in the current climate. What we are dealing with now is not merely a tendency to misrepresent and unintentionally misconstrue data, but rather deliberate attempts to obfuscate.
For example, one year ago we were assured that the facts categorically defied the possibility that this virus could have originated in a lab; today, that is no longer the case.
While it may be tempting to think that this error was unintentional, a deeper dive indicates the contrary: we were deliberately misled by our own government and certain “experts.” You might find this article illuminating; everyone I have shared it with certainly has:
“As officials at the meeting discussed what they could share with the public, they were advised by Christopher Park, the director of the State Department’s Biological Policy Staff in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, not to say anything that would point to the U.S. government’s own role in gain-of-function research, according to documentation of the meeting obtained by Vanity Fair.
Only two other labs in the world, in Texas and North Carolina, were doing similar research. “It’s not a dozen cities,” Dr. Richard Ebright said. “It’s three places.”
Some of the attendees were “absolutely floored,” said an official familiar with the proceedings. That someone in the U.S. government could “make an argument that is so nakedly against transparency, in light of the unfolding catastrophe, was…shocking and disturbing.”
Park, who in 2017 had been involved in lifting a U.S. government moratorium on funding for gain-of-function research, was not the only official to warn the State Department investigators against digging in sensitive places. As the group probed the lab-leak scenario, among other possibilities, its members were repeatedly advised not to open a “Pandora’s box,” said four former State Department officials interviewed by Vanity Fair. The admonitions “smelled like a cover-up,” said Thomas DiNanno, “and I wasn’t going to be part of it.”
Those who believed they knew the “truth” about the virus’ origin a year ago and insisted that it had emerged from a wet market in Wuhan believed they were omniscient — which, according to the Oxford dictionary simply means “know everything.” Note that there is no reference whatsoever to God in that definition.
I believe that when someone asserts that claims are patently false — and yes, I believe that is a bold statement — they should be prepared to back up that statement. I highlighted specific claims — the reduced lethality of viral strains over time, for example — that you have refused to address. It doesn’t seem fair to dismiss an invitation to support a statement by accusing someone of having a “condition.” As a rational thinker, I assumed you would welcome the opportunity to provide the evidence to rebut a patently false claim in the course of a debate.
I don’t subscribe to the Washington Post and therefore can’t take advantage of this particular expert’s musings. If you have a source for this information that does not require me to pay money, I would love to see it.
I understand if you do not want to continue this exchange. It’s a pity, though, because I do enjoy rational, thoughtful debate and was looking forward to the arguments you might offer to support your belief that my specific claims were patently false. However, I have been disappointed in this regard, time and again, throughout this pandemic. For one reason or another, rational debate is frequently cut short because people make assumptions about my beliefs (in God or other matters) that preclude a healthy exchange of thoughts and ideas. It’s somewhat distressing because I think it will be hard for us to move forward as a society if we allow assumptions to thwart our communications on these important matters.
Be well.
