Eric Stansifer on Bayesian analysis is the right framewor…

Eric Stansifer

Applied mathematician and co-judge of the Rootclaim COVID origins debate

I was concerned that people might interpret my Bayesian analysis as the “main product” of the report, in isolation from the rest, which is why I heavily cautioned against taking it too literally; indeed I explicitly state that I do not think it is an appropriate technique for this problem, and am only producing one because it feels fair to do so after criticizing Rootclaim’s analysis.

AI Verified source (Mar 1, 2024)

3mo ago

Policy proposals and claims

Bayesian analysis is the right framework for settling the COVID-19 origins question

votes Against

Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

AI Verified Relevant: in the source article about the COVID-19 origins debate, the quote is directly addressing whether Bayesian analysis is suitable for resolving that question. The author explicitly says he does not think Bayesian analysis is “an appropriate technique for this problem,” so a determinate stance on the complete statement is clearly signaled. ([ermsta.com](https://ermsta.com/posts/20240301)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 3mo ago

AI Verified Directly relevant: the quote is specifically about using Bayesian analysis for the COVID-19 origins problem, and in source context the author says he "explicitly" does not think it is an appropriate technique for this problem. That makes a determinable stance on the complete statement substantially more likely. ([ermsta.com](https://ermsta.com/posts/20240301?utm_source=openai)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 3mo ago

Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

AI Verified He is explicitly against it: he says he "do[es] not think it is an appropriate technique for this problem" and only produced a Bayesian analysis for fairness after criticizing someone else’s, not because he sees it as the right framework. ([ermsta.com](https://ermsta.com/posts/20240301)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 3mo ago

AI Verified Against: the author says he 'explicitly state[s] that I do not think it is an appropriate technique for this problem' and cautioned against taking his Bayesian analysis too literally, which directly opposes the claim that Bayesian analysis is the right framework for settling the COVID-19 origins question. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 3mo ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

AI Verified The quote is authentic: the source URL contains this passage verbatim at lines 12–13, and the page is dated 2024 March 01 at line 7. The post is written in first person about the author’s own COVID-origins report, and outside references connect the relevant ermsta.com materials to Eric Stansifer. ([ermsta.com](https://ermsta.com/posts/20240301)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 3mo ago

AI Verified The quote appears verbatim on the fetchable post titled “Response to Michael Weissman re. covid origins debate” at the supplied source URL; the page is dated 2024 March 01, and the surrounding first-person response to criticism of “Eric’s analysis,” together with other ermsta.com materials authored by Eric Stansifer, supports the attribution. I found no mismatch in content, author, date, or source URL. ([ermsta.com](https://ermsta.com/posts/20240301)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 3mo ago

replying to Eric Stansifer

Other opinions from Eric Stansifer

See all

Eric Stansifer votes Against

Bayesian analysis is the right framework for settling the COVID-19 origins question

Moreover I am not convinced that this Bayesian calculation is even an appropriate way to estimate the relative posterior probability of Z and LL; it just seemed fair that after criticizing Rootclaim's calculations at length I should make an attempt a...

more AI Verified source (Dec 18, 2023)