YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Jonathan

Human avatar
Rootclaim blog author
On the surface this may look like steelmanning – searching for a way to assign a high conditional probability. But steelmanning doesn’t mean just making up reasons for a high number. We need to find the highest number that can be reliably supported.
AI Verified source (Apr 1, 2024)
Like Share on X 2h 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 context, this quote is part of the author’s discussion of how to estimate conditional probabilities under competing COVID-origin hypotheses, i.e. a Bayesian/Bayes-factor method. The source frames that probabilistic approach as "the best way to approach this question" and says Rootclaim’s conclusions come from applying that methodology to the evidence, so the quote strongly signals a determinable pro-framework stance. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago
AI Verified Relevant: in context, the article explicitly says COVID-origins analysis should be done via Bayes factors and conditional probabilities and presents this as the best methodological approach; this quote is a rule for how to estimate one of those conditional probabilities, so it strongly signals the author’s supportive stance on Bayesian analysis as the framework for resolving the question. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago
Vote inference verification history Latest opinion AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified For. The quote defends estimating conditional probabilities carefully ('the highest number that can be reliably supported'), and the surrounding article explicitly says 'Our goal in a probabilistic analysis is to estimate Bayes factors,' calls that 'the best way to approach this question,' and says the methodology is 'superior to any other inference method.' That strongly implies the author sees Bayesian/probabilistic analysis as the right framework for resolving COVID-origins, even if 'settling' is inferred from context rather than restated in the quote itself. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago
AI Verified The quote defends assigning conditional probabilities only when they are "reliably supported," and in the article this is part of a Bayes-factor methodology for COVID origins: it says "Our goal in a probabilistic analysis is to estimate Bayes factors" and calls this "the best way to approach this question." That strongly implies support for Bayesian/probabilistic analysis as the proper framework here. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified The quote is authentic and verbatim: the exact text appears in the cited Rootclaim post at lines 143–145, and the page byline credits the article to Jonathan and dates it April 1, 2024. The author archive also lists this post under Jonathan. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago
AI Verified The quote appears verbatim on the cited Rootclaim post, and that same page attributes the article to “Jonathan” and dates it April 1, 2024. The source URL is fetchable and contains the quote exactly at lines 143-145. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago
replying to Jonathan