somethingwhere

I agree that using the phrase 'conspiracy theory' in the original Lancet letter was too much. And I'm totally fine with people taking issue with that. And, in hindsight, they really should've waited for more information before forming and strongly expressing such an opinion. They're definitely not free from blame. But I still think people should be able to change their mind by any amount based on new information. Why would you possibly argue that people should have to stick with ideas they no longer believe in just because they previously argued against them?

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.

Why are people not allowed a complete change of mind? If I have an opinion, but then find evidence that totally contradicts my prior opinion, surely I should be allowed a 'complete' change of mind?

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?

I haven't followed every scientist in that list so I have no idea how much any one of them might or might not have actively and aggressively smeared people. If that's the case, then obviously, that's awful. But they're still allowed to change their mind, and OP's comment seemed to take primary issue with the mind-changing. (That could be me mis-interpreting though.)

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).

Only they can answer that. The general point is that people should be able to change their mind; and the argument that 'you used to believe something different therefore you must be wrong/acting in bad faith' is nonsense.

It's still possible that they are wrong/bad actors; but that can't be determined based simply on a single change of opinion.

This is exactly how science is supposed to work. People learn some new things and they update their opinions based on that new data. That's a good thing.

The idea that people aren't allowed 'second thoughts' is probably the worst thing to happen to general discourse.