I've just watched this footage of Rand Paul asking Anthony Blinken for information relevant to the lab leak debate. It seems clear that there is information on file that would settle the debate, one way or the other. The AstralCodex article is about sifting the information that we are allowed to see, hoping to work out the answer from that limited information. This seems futile; once the real information comes out, it will trump all that we learned with our attempts at Bayesian integration of piles of weak, probabilistic evidence. Worse still, the refusal to release the information that we are not allowed to see is also informative. I think the fact of the refusal is in itself sufficient to prove that it was a lab leak.
That video has negative information content. Blinken is following a reasonable general policy of saying nothing of substance whatsoever, because sounding like a politician all the time is better for him than seeming reasonable and informative 95 out of 100 times and saying something that blows up on him occasionally. Paul takes advantage of Blinken's empty statements, using them as a canvas for an uncontested and vague picture of withholding critical information.
This doesn't imply there's secret information that'd settle the debate. This is exactly what would happen if government agencies were taking years to do simple procedural things (as happens constantly), and politicians wanted to make hay with it (as also happens constantly). Paul doesn't even have to be intentionally lying, just be someone who's willing to believe things that are both emotionally compelling and convenient, as most people are.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I've just watched this footage of Rand Paul asking Anthony Blinken for information relevant to the lab leak debate. It seems clear that there is information on file that would settle the debate, one way or the other. The AstralCodex article is about sifting the information that we are allowed to see, hoping to work out the answer from that limited information. This seems futile; once the real information comes out, it will trump all that we learned with our attempts at Bayesian integration of piles of weak, probabilistic evidence. Worse still, the refusal to release the information that we are not allowed to see is also informative. I think the fact of the refusal is in itself sufficient to prove that it was a lab leak.
That video has negative information content. Blinken is following a reasonable general policy of saying nothing of substance whatsoever, because sounding like a politician all the time is better for him than seeming reasonable and informative 95 out of 100 times and saying something that blows up on him occasionally. Paul takes advantage of Blinken's empty statements, using them as a canvas for an uncontested and vague picture of withholding critical information.
This doesn't imply there's secret information that'd settle the debate. This is exactly what would happen if government agencies were taking years to do simple procedural things (as happens constantly), and politicians wanted to make hay with it (as also happens constantly). Paul doesn't even have to be intentionally lying, just be someone who's willing to believe things that are both emotionally compelling and convenient, as most people are.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link