The idea that people aren't allowed 'second thoughts' is probably the worst thing to happen to general discourse.
Updating opinions based on evidence is good. Insulting and slandering people because they have different opinions is bad.
Edit: I've definitely seen people on Twitter and people in the media be overzealous when denying the lab-leak theory; but that's not the same as the scientists themselves doing it (which again, I don't know about either way).
Relevant excerpts:
> The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.
> Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus. We support the call from the Director-General of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture.
Scientists confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence (i.e. "we don't have evidence of lab leaks, so anyone claiming it's a lab leak is definitely wrong") -> joke of a scientist
Scientists making a statement not from scientific evidence but due to political expediency (see sibling post, i.e. "conspiracy theories are making China unhappy and they might not share data with us") -> political actors
If we're only ever allowed to change our minds by a little bit we'd all be struck in the neighbourhood of whatever (silly) opinions we had as five year olds.
Also, who's in charge of deciding what constitutes a 'complete' mind change vs the apparently-ok minor mind change?
If you want a fair discussion of theories you can’t label the other one a conspiracy theory.
So, should they be able to change their mind? Sure. Should they be less dismissive of opposing views? Also yes. There's no contradiction there.
This letter would be appropriate if people were proposing some terrible danger. It was always a stupid thing to do and the people who signed it never should. They will likely be thought of by their peers as idiots for the rest of their careers.
It's still possible that they are wrong/bad actors; but that can't be determined based simply on a single change of opinion.
The fact that people still believe "scientists" after all those flip-flops is astounding. It's like those "scientists" believe their reputation (individual and as a group) is invincible and they can get away with making unsubstantiated claims without being called out -- and surprisingly that's exactly what happens, mostly.
I'm not "anti-science" by any means and I don't believe in "conspiracy theories" but I can see why people are starting to view the scientific establishment with suspicion.