We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Scott Alexander
Author and psychiatrist
While everyone else tries “pop Bayesianism” and “Bayes-inspired toolboxes”, Rootclaim asks: what if you just directly apply Bayes to the world’s hardest problems? There’s something pure about that, in a way nobody else is trying. Unfortunately, the reason nobody else is trying this is because it doesn’t work. There’s too much evidence, and it’s too hard to figure out how to quantify it.AI Verified source (Mar 28, 2024)
2h ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes Against
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
Relevant: in the article’s "Aftermath: Rootclaim" section, the author is explicitly evaluating Rootclaim’s Bayesian approach in the context of the COVID-origins debate, and says that directly applying Bayes to such hard real-world problems "doesn’t work" because there is too much evidence and it is too hard to quantify. That strongly signals a determinable stance on whether Bayesian analysis is the right framework for settling the COVID-19 origins question. ([astralcodexten.com](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 2h ago
AI Verified
Relevant: in the source’s discussion of the COVID-origins debate, the author says that directly applying Bayes/Rootclaim to this kind of question “doesn’t work” because the evidence is too extensive and hard to quantify, and immediately supports that by noting that different Bayesian attempts produced wildly different results rather than settling the issue. That makes a determinate stance on whether Bayesian analysis is the right framework for settling the COVID-19 origins question substantially more likely. ([astralcodexten.com](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 2h ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
In this COVID-origins article, the author says that directly applying Bayes to the hardest real-world problems "doesn't work" because the evidence is too extensive and hard to quantify, and he adds that this method failed to "resolve" the disagreement. That strongly implies opposition to Bayesian analysis as the right framework for settling COVID origins. ([astralcodexten.com](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim?hide_intro_popup=true))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 2h ago
AI Verified
The author is opposing the statement: he says Rootclaim’s attempt to “directly apply Bayes” to COVID origins is appealing in theory, but “it doesn’t work” because there is “too much evidence” and it is “too hard to figure out how to quantify it.” In context, he also says nobody should try “full Bayesian reasoning on fuzzy real-world problems” like this and suggests abandoning that methodology, which strongly implies Bayesian analysis is not the right framework for settling the origins question. ([astralcodexten.com](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim?hide_intro_popup=true&utm_source=openai))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 2h ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
Verified. The provided URL is an Astral Codex Ten post by Scott Alexander dated Mar 28, 2024, and lines 380-381 contain the quote verbatim, with the same attribution. ([astralcodexten.com](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 2h ago
AI Verified
Verified: the exact quote appears verbatim in the article's 'The Aftermath: Rootclaim' section (lines 379-381), and the same page shows the byline 'Scott Alexander' and date 'Mar 28, 2024' (lines 7-15). The fetchable source URL contains the quote, so the stored author, date, content, and source URL are correct. ([astralcodexten.com](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim?hide_intro_popup=true))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 2h ago
replying to Scott Alexander