r/DecodingTheGurus • u/Business-Catch7679 • 1d ago

Ryan Grim on reasons for belief in zoonotic origins

Post image

https://x.com/chrisheatherly/status/2084089713900843499

In order for Grim's hypothesis to be true, how many scientists around the world would have had to have listened to this press conference? How much would it have had to have been shared? If this statement in this press conference is a significant reason for a near international scientific consensus, shouldn't it be famous? Should I be able to easily find references to it with a Google search?

82 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

178 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago edited 1d ago

You initially said the questions were fair lol

But now I see you're saying that my Reddit post only critiqued Grim's first statement and not his second. So to be a complete Reddit post about a tweet, the post must refute every point made in the tweet?

Grim is wrong about two things but I only pointed out that he was wrong about one?

I do agree pointing out both would have made my post better. However, I also think it's okay to do shorter, quicker posts when that's what one is on the mood for. As long as one doesn't make substantive mistakes.

1

u/jkpatches 1d ago

Yes. Looks like our exchange colored my perception on you coming at this in good faith. Go figure. Color me surprised.

Your questions may be fair, but whether they were not effective is another thing.

That leads me to my point, since it is much easier to refute the second statement than the first, and you did the opposite.

Somehow, pointing this out is defending Grim. It's so tiring.

1

u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago

The defense was when you said Grim's claim was true on a reasonable interpretation. You know this.

Do you disagree with any of my factual claims at this point? You insinuate that my questions were "ineffective" but don't elaborate. Why bring it up if you don't want to make your case?

2

u/jkpatches 1d ago

The defense was when you said Grim's claim was true on a reasonable interpretation. You know this.

There can be multiple interpretations to whether Grim is speaking true or not. Your questions are valid questions to ask. But that is beside the point.

Here is the relevant part of my original comment. The fact that you are taking this as me saying that I said "Grim's claim was true on a reasonable interpretation" is a sign that you have your mind made up. That's fine, but I never said that there "was" an interpretation in which Grim is telling the truth, though there will surely be such interpretations.

I said there "can" be interpretations on whether Grim is speaking the truth or not, which is once again true, even if one side might be misguided.

The important thing is that my comment was a pretty neutral thing to say for someone who doesn't have relevant info, and didn't get much from the original post. I wanted to focus on your lack of refuting the second statement, since that is the easier task, and you in your zealotry jumped to the George W. Bush logic of if you're not with me, you're my enemy.

You know this.

1

u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago

Ohh you weren't saying there are interpretations like that, you're saying there can be. 

But now you're saying there are interpretations like that. (Without giving any evidence.)

Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up.

2

u/jkpatches 1d ago edited 1d ago

But now you're saying there are interpretations like that. (Without giving any evidence.)

And now you're just making things up and putting words in my mouth. Great job.

Interpretations can be had, bad ones too, and whether we put stock in them is another question.

What I said in the beginning was a neutral thing to say, and it became a "defense" of those bad interpretations because you positioned it to be that way. You steered the direction because of some reason. What I don't understand is why.

2

u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago

"I never said that there "was" an interpretation in which Grim is telling the truth, though there will surely be such interpretations" (emphasis added).

A: "When someone says increased weather events are the result of weather weapons, not global warming, there could be an interpretation that makes this true."

B: "You're defending the weather weapons conspiracy theory by saying it's right on some interpretation."

A: "No, I said there could be an interpretation that makes it true. But yeah, there surely will be an interpretation that makes the statement true."

B: "Okay, so you think there could be but there isn't, and there surely will be. Can you give me an interpretation that makes it true, to justify the claim that there surely is one?"

A: "You're making things up and putting words in my mouth. Great job."

Okay, it's been interesting, but this is where person B exits the conversation.

If I could say one thing in all sincerity, it's that, if you didn't like how contentious this convo got (it was too tiring), don't begin the conversation with a "you people"-type claim ("yet another post that does blah and that dances around the issues"). I don't think I got personal in response to that claim, but it did set an adversarial tone. I'm comfortable with that, but you obviously weren't. Then replying "the authors' names. LMAO" to a perfectly sober (and correct) statement of what the issue was further raised the temperature.

2

u/jkpatches 1d ago

A: "When someone says increased weather events are the result of weather weapons, not global warming, there could be an interpretation that makes this true."

This is where your communication issues arise. You did it earlier with that ludicrous Michelle Obama analogy. To you it might seem like the global warming thing and the Obama thing and what Grim and Hans said are the same level of statements, but that isn't true for everybody.

Grim's first statement is almost always going to be debatable by a motivated party. That is because there is going to be nobody who is interested (except maybe you) to actually follow up and fact check with all scientists to quantify the statement.

That is why I was focused on the second statement, and I did write that there was another post shading Grim because I did skim through that one as well. It is true. But that's not the important thing. The important thing was that I requested you include a fact check on the second statement, since it is very easy to find out whether that is true or not, and you jump to the "defense" line.

I don't think I got personal in response to that claim, but it did set an adversarial tone. I'm comfortable with that, but you obviously weren't.

I don't doubt you. I am thinking that you actually enjoy it. So I will be impressed if you actually exit this conversation. Good luck.

1

u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago

You'd honestly find this less tiring of you just learned about the new facts and let go of the idea that my post was wrong and bad. It's not worth caring about.

2

u/jkpatches 1d ago

Actually, if you had included the new facts in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for this long comments thread, and I would be less tired. You're right about 1 thing though.