回复 183楼Shang_Ri_La的帖子

英语中plausible 与 possible 中文表面上意思接近，都是可能，在英语上相差很大，前者意味大几率，后者意味小几率, 比如说， 90% vs 10%. 也许中文分别译成，极可能与可能，更确切。

noshock 发表于 2021-06-07 21:34

其实到现在，技术层面的讨论已经没有什么突破性意义了

真凭实据已经湮灭殆尽

多数人也已经做出了判断设定了立场

是时候讨论下一步怎么办了

其实到现在，技术层面的讨论已经没有什么突破性意义了

真凭实据已经湮灭殆尽

多数人也已经做出了判断设定了立场

是时候讨论下一步怎么办了

Shang_Ri_La 发表于 2021-06-07 21:47

有意义

美帝关于新冠的group thinking到了灭绝人性的地步了

有意义

美帝关于新冠的group thinking到了灭绝人性的地步了

CleverBeaver 发表于 2021-06-07 21:49

压制言论不属于我提的“技术层面”问题

而是更深层的社会组织问题

确实值得深刻反思

其实到现在，技术层面的讨论已经没有什么突破性意义了

真凭实据已经湮灭殆尽

多数人也已经做出了判断设定了立场

是时候讨论下一步怎么办了

Shang_Ri_La 发表于 2021-06-07 21:47

看到了这篇Bloomberg的文章。。。

[url]https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-04/if-covid-did-escape-from-a-wuhan-lab-brace-yourself[/url]

本人斗胆猜测一下， Fauci‘s days as so called authority are numbered!

看到了这篇Bloomberg的文章。。。

[url]https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-04/if-covid-did-escape-from-a-wuhan-lab-brace-yourself[/url]

fopen 发表于 2021-06-07 21:51

现在都要付费，不是 pay as you go, 而是 pay indefinitely. 你可否转一下作为闲谈一部分？

看到了这篇Bloomberg的文章。。。

[url]https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-04/if-covid-did-escape-from-a-wuhan-lab-brace-yourself[/url]

fopen 发表于 2021-06-07 21:51

If the Covid-19 virus does turn out to have escaped from a Wuhan laboratory, even by accident, the world will erupt in fury. The pressure to “do something about it” — to find a way to punish China for its negligence and its coverup — will be intense. So here’s my modest suggestion, should that unhappy situation arise: Whatever we decide to do, let’s take the time to think things through, rather than acting out of unreasoning anger.

我完全赞同

现在都要付费，不是 pay as you go, 而是 pay indefinitely. 你可否转一下作为闲谈一部分？

noshock 发表于 2021-06-07 21:57

Technology & Ideas

The world’s anger will be terrible to behold.

By Stephen L. Carter

June 4, 2021, 4:00 PM MDT

If Covid Did Escape From a Wuhan Lab, Brace Yourself

Ever since President Joe Biden ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to investigate reports that

the Covid-19 virus might have escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan, commentators have

argued over what difference it makes if the theory turns out to be right. Here’s why the

answer matters: The discovery that the virus had a human origin would give the coronavirus

saga what it’s lacked: a villain.

And that’s a problem.

If a virus that has killed nearly 600,000 people in the U.S. and close to 4 million around the

world turns out to have escaped from a laboratory in China, the formless fear that has

immobilized most of the world for the last year and a half, at last given a target, might

coalesce into fury.

And fury, when widely shared, is hard to control.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s important to know the truth, and some degree of anger might be

good for us. One of the many tragic features of the pandemic has been the way that efforts at

public dialogue about causes, remedies, and, yes, whether the virus itself might be human-made,

were for the most part stilted and lost, the angry murmurings of a people all but

immobilized by anxiety.

To be sure, we sought villains as best we could: The whole mess was Donald Trump’s fault,

the shutdowns were a power grab by blue elites, the real problem was bureaucratic

incompetence. But this was mostly the performance of pain without adequate information.

We can include in this category the pretense that scientists were certain that Covid-19 was not

of human origin — and that those who suggested otherwise were dangerous cranks. That

fantasy was exploded by the meticulous reporting of the veteran science writer Nicholas

Wade in an article published in May in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Wade’s persuasive

case that the novel coronavirus escaped containment at the Wuhan Institute of Virology —

which was conducting research on altering viruses so they would more easily jump from

animals to humans — has reopened a debate we should have been having all along. Biden’s

order is a consequence.

But here’s where one might worry. Research on risk perception shows that we tend to fear

human-made harms more than natural ones, even when the natural ones have greater

likelihood or severity. Some research suggests that human-made harms make us angrier too.

The distinction makes sense. It’s easy to hate, say, a terrorist group like ISIS. There’s no point

in hating an earthquake.

But anger generally doesn’t do us any favors. Some people think better when they’re angry;

most think worse. Moreover, there’s a well-known finding in social science that anger leads us

to be irrationally optimistic about our ability to solve a problem.

It may be, as Ross Douthat has suggested, that a confirmation that the Covid-19 virus escaped

from a Chinese laboratory would lead to a major propaganda advantage in the geopolitical

battle over hearts and minds. Such victories matter. But they’re not likely to satisfy the all-too-literal

American mind, which, when roused to anger, invariably seeks more concrete

satisfactions: invade this, regulate that, throw so-and-so in jail. Anger seeks catharsis, often in

the urge to “do something.” Lots of bad policy is driven that way.

The Sept. 11 experience offered a catharsis because the nation was able to strike back. On the

other hand, the intensity of national fear and anger created an atmosphere in which it was

difficult to engage in serious public debate about the merits of the invasions of Afghanistan

and Iraq.

What about regulation? Perhaps evidence that Covid-19 was of human manufacture would

bring about international consensus that all experiments on viruses that might jump to

humans should be carried out at a higher level of biohazard safety. As Wade points out,

however, the problem is often less what the rules demand than what researchers find

convenient. (It’s not as though deadly viruses have never escaped containment in the West.)

Besides, as the British astrophysicist Martin Rees reminds us in his 2003 book “Our Final

Hour,” rules are not universally followed. No matter how strictly we regulate the handling of

dangerous microbes, Rees writes, “the chances of effective enforcement, worldwide, are no

better than current enforcement of laws against illegal drugs.” Just a single rule-breaker, he

notes, “could trigger widespread disaster.”

Which is to say that even if the Covid-19 virus didn’t escape from an improperly contained lab,

sooner or later one will.

Which brings me to my final thought.

Biden’s order to the intelligence agencies was a good thing. But the 90-day deadline smacks of

political theater. The U.S. needed two decades to figure out what went wrong at Pearl Harbor.

We had trouble tracking Osama bin Laden to a compound he had reportedly occupied for five

years. That we will uncover the truth about the origin of the pandemic in three months seems

... unlikely.

If the Covid-19 virus does turn out to have escaped from a Wuhan laboratory, even by

accident, the world will erupt in fury. The pressure to “do something about it” — to find a way

to punish China for its negligence and its cover-up — will be intense. So here’s my modest

suggestion, should that unhappy situation arise: Whatever we decide to do, let’s take the time

to think things through, rather than acting out of unreasoning anger.

To contact the author of this story:

Stephen L. Carter at [email protected]

本来就是个八卦的地方，你要有正经东西写出来发正经杂志，发paper。

bluecrab 发表于 2021-06-07 08:43

😂说你是和中国外交部一样，还真没说错

补充一下作者简介

Stephen L. Carter is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of law at Yale University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. His novels include “The Emperor of Ocean Park,” and his latest nonfiction book is “Invisible: The Forgotten Story of the Black Woman Lawyer Who Took Down America's Most Powerful Mobster.”

压制言论不属于我提的“技术层面”问题

而是更深层的社会组织问题

确实值得深刻反思

Shang_Ri_La 发表于 2021-06-07 21:51

这个本身我觉得比GoF研究和强迫打实验性疫苗都吓人的多

喜欢一言堂的话 还来美国干嘛呢 强国多好

本质上就是学术界腐败透顶，言论自由更不谈了。

学阀大佬一封邮件，马上可以召集出99 scientists给自己撑腰，不听话的混不下去，帮忙抬轿子的无脑拿fund。

might 发表于 2021-06-07 20:07

腐败透顶了

顶着科学家的帽子坑蒙拐骗…… well

你说probable 和 possible吗？Plausible 意思是，听起来有道理、服人、可信，跟“可能性”只有一点点关系

腐败透顶了

顶着科学家的帽子坑蒙拐骗…… well

CleverBeaver 发表于 2021-06-07 23:01

还有“deep state”，就因为是Trump要做的事，必然反对使绊子

党同伐异，毫无是非原则

也许，明确的外部敌人可以把这个割裂的社会拢回来

还有“deep state”，就因为是Trump要做的事，必然反对使绊子

党同伐异，毫无是非原则

也许，明确的外部敌人可以把这个割裂的社会拢回来

Shang_Ri_La 发表于 2021-06-07 23:50

我居然不知道alina chan和baric一起和国防部门打了一通三小时的电话

国务院里的刀光剑影，激烈交锋对决

http://downloads.vanityfair.com/lab-leak-theory/1821COVIDemail.pdf

http://downloads.vanityfair.com/lab-leak-theory/Response_to_Former_Asst_Sec_Ford.pdf

回复 202楼CleverBeaver的帖子

国务院里的刀光剑影，激烈交锋对决

http://downloads.vanityfair.com/lab-leak-theory/1821COVIDemail.pdf

http://downloads.vanityfair.com/lab-leak-theory/Response_to_Former_Asst_Sec_Ford.pdf

Shang_Ri_La 发表于 2021-06-08 02:05

所以 所谓check and balance都没有了？

所以 所谓check and balance都没有了？

CleverBeaver 发表于 2021-06-08 02:08

恰恰相反，AVC不畏上级（助理国务卿）捣乱，据理力争

而且Vanity Fair能够把这些材料原封不动呈现出来

说明制衡在相当程度上还是存在着的

AVC的反斥，几乎就是指着名的骂Ford是个白痴、搅屎棍！

恰恰相反，AVC不畏上级（助理国务卿）捣乱，据理力争

而且Vanity Fair能够把这些材料原封不动呈现出来

说明制衡在相当程度上还是存在着的

Shang_Ri_La 发表于 2021-06-08 02:45

🦄🦄🦄