Regardless of whether the lack of these kinds of studies is justified, I think you shouldn’t automatically assume that “virology is unreasonable” or “there’s something wrong with virologists”. Because you’re asking why the lack exists, there’s something you don’t know about virology, and your prior should be that it’s justified, similar to Chesterton’s Fence.
Regardless of whether the lack of these kinds of studies is justified, I think you shouldn’t automatically assume that “virology is unreasonable” or “there’s something wrong with virologists”. Because you’re asking why the lack exists, there’s something you don’t know about virology, and your prior should be that it’s justified, similar to Chesterton’s Fence.
If a field gets an important question wrong, then there is something wrong with it. People died because virologists got it wrong.
I think it’s reasonable to measure a field by its outcomes and not by its justifications.
The virologists not only created a dangerous virus that caused a pandemic, but they also failed to provide useful knowledge about virus transmission.