YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Jonathan

Human avatar
Rootclaim blog author
The mistake of assigning extreme likelihoods, such as those assigned to HSM by the proponents of Zoonosis, is similar to strawmanning in human debate and can demolish an otherwise valid probabilistic analysis.
AI Verified source (Apr 1, 2024)
Like Share on X 1h ago
Policy proposals and claims
Bayesian analysis is the right framework for settling the COVID-19 origins question
votes For
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified Relevant: in the source context, this quote is part of a section the author presents as explaining the best way to approach the COVID-19 origins question, and that section frames the task as estimating Bayes factors and conditional probabilities. The quoted warning about extreme likelihood assignments is therefore a methodological reason within the author's support for Bayesian/probabilistic analysis as the framework, so a pro stance on the complete statement is determinable. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 45min ago
AI Verified Relevant: in the source context, this quote is part of a section on estimating Bayes factors and conditional probabilities, and the article presents that methodology as "the best way to approach this question." So the quote is a methodological reason the author gives within support for Bayesian/probabilistic analysis of COVID-origins inference, making a stance on the complete statement determinable. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 1h ago
Vote inference verification history Latest opinion AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified For. The quote treats the problem as bad likelihood assignments that can wreck an "otherwise valid probabilistic analysis," which implies support for Bayesian/probabilistic analysis itself when done properly. The article’s surrounding context makes that explicit by saying the goal is to estimate Bayes factors and that this is "the best way to approach this question." ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 43min ago
AI Verified For. The quote criticizes bad likelihood assignments as ruining a "valid probabilistic analysis," and the source context makes the framework explicit: "our goal in a probabilistic analysis is to estimate Bayes factors," while calling this "the best way to approach this question" about COVID origins. That strongly implies the author sees Bayesian/probabilistic analysis as the proper framework for resolving the issue. ([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 this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified Authentic. The source URL is a Rootclaim post titled “COVID origins debate: Response to Scott Alexander,” dated April 1, 2024, with the byline “Jonathan,” and it contains the quoted sentence verbatim in the body at lines 52–56. The post notes that the surrounding section was copied from an earlier Rootclaim post, but this exact wording does appear on the Jonathan page itself. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 46min ago
AI Verified The quote is authentic: the exact sentence appears verbatim on the cited Rootclaim Blog article “COVID origins debate: Response to Scott Alexander,” and that same page credits the post to Jonathan and dates it April 1, 2024. The stored quote text, author, date, and source URL match the fetchable source. ([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