Notably, this includes conclusions about the origin of the pandemic, which the report describes as 'most likely' emerging from a lab rather than being the product of the zoonotic transfer between an animal species and humans. The latter explanation is favored by many scientists.
The Republican majority engages in a process of systematically changing the standard of evidence needed for it to reach a conclusion. For a conclusion the report's authors favor, they'll happily accept evidence from computer models or arguments from an editorial in the popular press; for conclusions they disfavor, they demand double-blind controlled clinical trials.
This approach, which I'll term 'shifting the evidentiary baseline,' shows up in many arguments regarding scientific evidence. But it has rarely been employed quite this pervasively.
We’re likely to see many of them put to use in the near future, as the committee's conclusions suggest a broader political tactic of using science selectively.
Collection
[
|
...
]