We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Chris
blog commenter
In fact I think this is a problem for public understanding of science [...] dressing up pseudoscience with a veneer of “sciency”-sounding arguments [...].AI Verified (Feb 4, 2025)
20d ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes Against
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote dismisses the Bayesian origin argument as pseudoscience, which is clearly against the lab-related-incident statement. model:gpt-5.4-mini
·
Hector Perez Arenas
gpt-5.4-mini
· 17d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
The quote rejects the Bayesian origin argument as pseudoscience, so against the lab-related-incident statement is correct. model:gpt-5.4-mini
·
Hector Perez Arenas
gpt-5.4-mini
· 17d ago
votes Against
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
Relevant: in context, “this” refers to the Bayesian COVID-origins analysis under discussion, and the quote characterizes that approach as pseudoscientific window-dressing, which makes a negative stance on Bayesian analysis as the right framework substantially more likely. ([statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu](https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/02/03/bayesian-analysis-of-origins-of-covid/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 20d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
On the source page, the quote is Chris's comment attacking this Bayesian COVID-origins approach as pseudoscience with a sciency-sounding veneer and comparing it to Intelligent Design arguments. That strongly implies he opposes Bayesian analysis as the right framework for settling the question. ([statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu](https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/02/03/bayesian-analysis-of-origins-of-covid/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 20d ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
Verified: on the provided StatModeling post, a comment attributed to Chris and timestamped February 4, 2025, 6:12 AM contains the full sentence, “In fact I think this is a problem for public understanding of science, since it suggests (to me) the possibility of dressing up pseudoscience with a veneer of “sciency”-sounding arguments in a long rambling discourse (562 references!) to fool the public, and being allowed to get away with it.” The submitted text is a faithful excerpt using ellipses for omitted material, and the stored author, date, and source URL are consistent with the page. ([statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu](https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/02/03/bayesian-analysis-of-origins-of-covid/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 20d ago
replying to Chris