We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Jonathan
Rootclaim blog author
His post has two main messages: [...] It’s hard to get probabilistic inference right – we fully agree with this and ironically his post is a great example, containing many probabilistic inference mistakes, some of which are listed below. While we agree it’s hard, our experience taught us that it is far from impossible.AI Verified source (Apr 1, 2024)
1h ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes For
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
Relevant: in the article, this quote is part of the author’s defense of probabilistic/Bayesian inference for the COVID-origins debate, arguing that such inference is hard but feasible. The surrounding text explicitly applies Bayes factors and conditional probabilities to COVID origins and calls that framework "the best way to approach this question," so the quote gives a determinable pro-framework signal. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 48min ago
AI Verified
Relevant: in source context, the quote is about doing probabilistic inference correctly for the COVID-origins debate, and the article explicitly frames its method as estimating Bayes factors and as 'the best way to approach this question.' That makes a pro-framework stance on Bayesian/probabilistic analysis substantially more likely. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 1h ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
The author is supportive. The quote says probabilistic inference is hard but "far from impossible," and the surrounding article argues that one must learn probabilistic inference correctly to judge the evidence, treats Bayes factors as the measure of evidential strength, and calls that approach "the best way to approach this question." That implies Bayesian/probabilistic analysis is the proper framework for deciding the COVID-origins issue, even if the statement is implied rather than stated verbatim. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 47min ago
AI Verified
The author is supportive: the quote says probabilistic inference is hard but "far from impossible," and the article explicitly says this is "the best way to approach this question" and that "our goal in a probabilistic analysis is to estimate Bayes factors." That strongly implies Bayesian/probabilistic analysis is the proper framework for resolving COVID-origins claims. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 1h ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
The provided URL is fetchable and contains the quote. The article is titled "COVID origins debate: Response to Scott Alexander," dated April 1, 2024, and credited to "Jonathan"; lines 21–22 show: "His post has two main messages:" followed by the quoted sentence verbatim apart from the allowed omission marker ([...], which here skips the list formatting before item 1). I found no reliable evidence that the stored author, date, or source URL are wrong. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 49min ago
AI Verified
The source URL is fetchable, and the Rootclaim Blog page itself shows the article title, date “April 1, 2024,” and author “Jonathan.” The quoted wording appears on that page at lines 21–22; the submitter’s `[...]` is an allowed omission covering the list formatting between the heading and item 1, so the substantive text is verbatim and correctly attributed. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 1h ago
replying to Jonathan