In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, many scientists embraced the idea, based on past experience with other coronaviruses, that it was highly probable that the new coronavirus (Sars-Cov2) originated as a result of a zoonotic jump from an animal to people. They believed that such a jump likely occurred in the Huanan wet market where some infections were reported at the end of 2019. Nevertheless, these scientists dogmatically rejected at the time other possible and plausible hypotheses that might have explained a different origin of the virus. They even publicly blamed the minority of scientists, who proposed alternative hypotheses, for kowtowing to political considerations and succumbing to conspiracy theories.
Scientific studies nowadays, while contending that there is new but not definitive evidence for the zoonotic hypothesis, do not rule out the possibility of the virus escaping from a lab leak or that an infected person might have brought it to the Huanan wet market where new traces of the virus has been found. Even Dr. Kristian Andersen, who was an earlier defender of the lab leak hypothesis, has changed his mind and now believes that the new evidence supports the zoonotic hypothesis.
The minority of scientists, who were and perhaps even are publicly excoriated by members of the scientific establishment, conjectured that the virus might have escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (aka, WIV) that is near the Huanan wet market. These scientists were not and are not necessarily advocating any kind of conspiracy theory by Chinese authorities. Instead, they have offered a different plausible explanation for the origin of the virus based on a real possibility of human error that Chinese government officials have been reluctant to admit. After all, it is known that scientists at the WIV have been conducting experiments on coronaviruses for quite some time. Also, we have reason to believe that Chinese government officials have diverted attention, surmising suspect hypotheses for the presence of the virus in the mainland, such as that the virus has been exported from the US to China.
Despite the new evidence supporting the zoonotic jump hypothesis, I contend that the minority’s view still seems more reasonable to accept at this time than the majority’s view regarding the origin of the virus. There is also new statistical evidence based on risk analysis that supports the minority’s hypothesis. I will try to justify the plausibility of the minority’s hypothesis by deductive reasoning first and then by inductive reasoning appealing to the notion of Inference to the Best Explanation (aka, I2BE).
Deductively Cogent Argument Supporting the Minority’s Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1: Sars-Cov2 occurred as a zoonotic jump from an animal to a human.
Hypothesis 2: Sars-Cov2 occurred as a non-reported human accident of an enhanced potential pandemic pathogen from the WIV.
Observation O: One would expect to identify the animal carrier of Sars-Cov2.
Observation ~O: One would not expect to identify the animal carrier of Sars-Cov2.
[P1]. Either Sars-Cov2 occurred as a zoonotic jump from an animal to a human (H1), or it occurred as a non-reported human accident of an enhanced potential pandemic pathogen from the WIV (H2).
[P2]. If H1 were true, one would expect to identify the animal carrier of Sars-Cov2(O).
[P3]. If H2 were true, one would not expect to identify the animal carrier of Sars-Cov2 (~O).
[P4]. The animal carrier of Sars-Cov2 has not been identified (~O).
[P5] [C1]. Hence, H1 is false. (Modus Tollens, 2, 4)
[C2]. Therefore, H2 is true. (Disjunctive Syllogism, 1, 5)
Scientists from the international community have defended [P1] as the two reasonable conjectures or hypotheses to explain the origin of Sars-Cov2. We can always think of other possible but less plausible hypotheses for the existence of the virus and hence the pandemic. For example, some might conjecture that the US and NATO countries created the Sars-Cov2 virus to deliberately stop China from expanding their global economic power. Others might speculate that the Chinese government created and deliberately released the virus to reduce their overpopulation. And still others might believe that the Chinese government created and deliberately released the virus to wreak havoc on the US and European economies, so China will become the next global hegemon.
While possible, none of the above three conjectures seem to have much evidence to support them. To the best of my knowledge, no one has provided credible evidence showing that the US and NATO have created the virus. One can question the second conjecture because the pandemic has detrimentally affected Chinese society, causing more socio and economic problems for Chinese government officials without necessarily helping control their population. And lastly, the third conjecture is undermined because the pandemic adversely affected not only the US and European economies but also the Chinese economy, which drastically contracted because of it.
Despite having sufficient evidence to accept [P1], some might challenge the cogency of my deductive argument. Given the new evidence supporting the zoonotic jump hypothesis, some might argue that [P4] seems to be true because recent studies are inching closer to disproving it. Still, getting closer to disproving it, does not conclusively disprove it. We need to be humble in ascertaining that, while our deductively valid argument seems to show that H1 has been falsified, it is more reasonable to argue that the veracity of H1 has been temporarily undermined. The latter is a weaker claim supported by the following counterfactual situation. Suppose that in the not-too-distant future, some scientists were to find the animal carrier from which the Sars-Cov2 virus originated creating a zoonotic jump into humans. Now, we can conclude that, given the best data available at the time, [P4] is false rather than true as originally thought. Hence, we would necessarily conclude that (H1) rather than (H2) would be true. Sound scientific practice requires that we keep an open mind by focusing on the relevant data, the integrity of those who collect and select the data, and how justified they are in arriving at their results. We follow the argument where it might lead to bracketing as much as possible extraneous considerations, including political and/or self-regarding motivations.
That is not to say that there is no politics in science. Of course, there is politics in science in both the context of discovery, namely collecting data, and the context of justification, namely evaluating and testing hypotheses. The acrimonious debate about the origin of Sars-Cov2 proves it. But in politics, as well as in science, there are virtuous and vicious practices. Good politics, as well as good science, promotes building consensus on compelling explanations, promoting transparency, and disregarding vicious practices, including neglecting relevant evidence or facts, or manipulating them. Whether in science or in politics, we might have various and diverse opinions, but facts are true descriptions of the state of affairs that are not necessarily mind-dependent but rather open to public inspections and scrutiny by reasonable and fair-minded people anywhere around the globe.
I also argue in favor of accepting the truth of H2 rather than H1 by appealing to induction as Inference to the Best Explanation (aka, I2BE). Consider the argument below:
I2BE Supporting the Minority’s Hypothesis
OHA: Observation of Human Accident.
[P1] Either Sars-Cov2 occurred as a zoonotic jump from an animal to a human (H1), or it occurred as a non-reported human accident of an enhanced potential pandemic pathogen from the WIV (H2).
[P2] If H1 were true, one would expect to identify the animal carrier of Sars-Cov2 (O).
[P3]. If H2 were true, one would expect to find evidence supporting that a human accident had occurred at the WIV (OHA).
[P4] While new evidence has been found supporting the zoonotic jump hypothesis, scientists have been unable to identify the precise animal carrier of the virus.
[P5] We have circumstantial and risk analysis evidence showing that an accident might have occurred at the WIV.
[P6] Absent the precise identification of the animal carrier, H2 is the best explanation that we have now to account for the existence of Sars-Cov2.
[C] Hence, it is probable that H2 is true.
Premises [P1] to [P3] seem noncontroversial. Yet premise [P4] might seem problematic to some. They could argue that, while not conclusive, the new evidence is sufficient to favor H1 rather than H2. But is it sufficient in the absence of the specific animal carrier? Moreover, some might argue that the evidence supporting [P5] is weaker than the evidence supporting the veracity of the zoonotic jump hypothesis. Still, I can advance the following reasons to defend [P5]. For example, we know that scientists at WIV have been experimenting with enhanced potential pandemic pathogens, such as various kinds of coronaviruses. In addition, we have reason to believe that Chinese government officials and their cohorts working at WIV have not been transparent in reporting past accidents at their facilities. We might conceive of such lack of transparency as evidence by omission. Also, there is new risk analysis evidence that an accident might have occurred at the WIV. Hence, in the absence of an identified animal carrier, the above circumstantial and risk analysis evidence, while inconclusive as the new evidence supporting the zoonotic jump hypothesis is too, provides reasonable support for the above conclusion. Therefore, it seems that both deductive and inductive arguments support the probable truth of H2.
However, were we to identify an animal carrier of the virus Sars-Cov2 in the future, we would need to revise our argument according to the new evidence. We would conclude instead that H1 rather than H2 is the best explanation that we have to account for the origin of Sars-Cov2. In the absence of such evidence, and despite what recent scientific studies indicate, we have reason to believe that the origin of Sars-Cov2 and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic seem to be human rather than animal-made.
Still, some might argue that we are rushing to judgment. Since we have been unable to identify the animal carrier, but we also have no conclusive positive evidence that an accident has occurred in the WIV, it is reasonable to suspend judgment at this time regarding the origin of Sarvs-Cov2. Nevertheless, given the secrecy and red herring arguments of Chinese officials, their lack of cooperation with the scientific community, and the statistical evidence providing support for H2, it is more reasonable to accept the truth of H2 rather than H1. Only time will tell who is in the right.
After all, perhaps neither H1 nor H2 might turn out to be true, but a more sinister hypothesis might explain the pandemic. That is, H3 or a deliberate human experiment whereby an enhanced potentially pandemic pathogen was created by an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm designed to get rid of a large part of the global population, especially the elderly and the sick. H3 is a stretch of my imagination; however, the practice of good science should not rule out a possible and plausible conjecture regardless of how farfetched it might be until it is conclusively refuted by sound reasoning and/or by compelling empirical evidence or the lack of it thereof. We have reason to believe that there is no certainty in science, but, like in any other human enterprise, there are better and worse practices. Attacking people’s motives or character, as it has occurred to those who espoused the minority’s view about the origin of Sars-Cov2, might undermine their credibility in the public eye, but certainly not the cogency of their arguments.
Vicente Medina
Vicente Medina is a professor of philosophy at Seton Hall University where he has been teaching for the past thirty-two years. He has published on terrorism, political philosophy, applied ethics, and Latin American Philosophy.
I’m glad the APA blog is addressing this issue, and the lack of an identified animal vector is part of the argument for lab escape. But there are many other reasons to think it’s a manipulated virus, and (I think) many of them provide stronger grounds for endorsing the hypothesis than this one.
No argument for lab escape that doesn’t discuss project DEFUSE, and the striking similarities between SARS-COV-2 and a the blueprints of a gain of function experiment intended to be carried out at the WIV just a year before the pandemic started is incomplete. As is an argument that ignores the the evidence of that SARS-COV-2 was put together using invitro genome assembly, and the fact that the person who first noticed this saw six assembly sites before we knew that project DEFUSE intended to use ige with six splices. As is any that ignores the fact that David Morens and the NIH had a “FOIA lady”. I could keep going. I think if you look at all the evidence at this point it barely deserves to be considered an open issue.
Thanks for having read my short piece and for alerting me to the alleged existence of project DIFUSE. I must confess that I was unaware of it. By the way, I am glad to learn that there are other reasons supporting the possibility and plausibility of the leak hypothesis. I guess that would make my argument for I2BE an even stronger argument. Since I am neither a virologist nor a philosopher of science, I am unfamiliar with the nuances of gain of function technology. Where I tend to disagree is that the leak hypothesis “barely deserves to be considered an open issue.” That might be the case, but according to the articles that I have read, the controversy is very much alive. The point of my argument is to show how good reasoning can support the leak hypothesis in the face of ad hominem attacks by the majority of scientists. Who is on the right on this debate remains to be seen.
My sweet summer’s child: there is no “alleged” existence of DEFUSE. We have, from FOIA requests, not only the grant application to DARPA, but early drafts in Microsoft word with “comments” (in the MS word sense) being shared between Peter Daszak, Ralph Baric and Shi Zhegnli (of the WIV).
https://usrtk.org/covid-19-origins/american-scientists-misled-pentagon-on-wuhan-research/
Who is right will not be seen definitely until the Whitehouse declassifies all the NIH and NIAI documents related to the funding of GOF research by any of the people associated with DEFUSE. We wont get there if being go around talking about “the alleged existence” of DEFUSE. Or fail to direct people’s attention to the mountain of evidence that is out there that suggests the virus came from a collaboration between a particular group of American scientists and the WIV. Not only does all this evidence overwhelmingly suggest that the virus originated at the WIV, it puts to bed any nefarious talk about China’s intentions. We know what the intensions were here (or at least, we know what the claimed intentions were–obviously many scientists are motivated simply by wanting big grants to do what they think is cool, fun stuff), and we know this was joint effort between the US and one Chinese lab.
Thanks for sharing this interesting website. I agree with you that full disclosure is necessary for practicing good science. Perhaps at some point the government will come clean on this highly contentious issue. But I am pessimistic about this outcome. Government officials of any ideological persuasion are more concerned with their own selfish goals than with promoting truth or the common good. Regrettably, in an era of “post truth” and “alternative facts,” I do not expect much from our government officials, including the White House.
Thanks for sharing this interesting website. I agree with you that full disclosure is necessary for practicing good science. Perhaps at some point the government will come clean on this highly contentious issue. But I am pessimistic about this outcome. Government officials of any ideological persuasion are more concerned with their own selfish goals than with promoting truth or the common good. Regrettably, in an era of “post truth” and “alternative facts,” I do not expect much from our government officials.
Your deductive argument is invalid and therefore unsound. Why? Because the premise “The animal carrier of Sars-Cov2 has not been identified” is not the negation of 0. That is, it is not (~O). After all, O is about what one should expect, which is a propositional (i.e., psychological) attitude, while the premise in question is a statement of facts.
But you can easily fix this problem by getting rid of the propositional attitude in the consequent of the conditional premise. Just make it a statement of fact.
Anyhow, once you fix this problem, a further issue facing the soundness of your argument is the disjunctive premise since it’s an open question whether there are just two options for the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. Thus, I find your abduction more credible.
Thanks for your worthwhile observations. In principle, it is true that the empirical or factual claim described by [P4]: “the animal carrier of Sars-Cov2 has not been identified” (~O) does not necessarily negate the intentional expression: “one would expect to identify the animal carrier of Sars-Cov2” (O) in [P2], but per your suggestion that could be simply fixed by reformulating [P4] as follows: “the expectation of finding the animal carrier of Sars-Cov2” has not been fulfilled. In that way, we can guarantee the validity of the argument. However, I agree with you that the soundness or cogency of the argument might be questioned by challenging [P1]. Does [P1] describe a real dilemma or is it a false dilemma? It seems that most scientists believe that it describes a real dilemma. But from the fact, if indeed it is a fact, that most scientists believe so, it does not follow that it is so. Afterall, only time might tell, or perhaps we will never find out. Thanks again for your contribution to this conversation.