We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Philipp Markolin
Science writer covering SARS-CoV-2 origins and the Rootclaim debate
Now reducing human biases and providing aid to reasoning are certainly lofty goals one can and ought to agree with. But the devil is, as often, in the details and implementation. How it works: Rootclaim defines basically a set of hypotheses, then takes all available evidence and groups them into evidence clusters (evidence that is conditionally dependent on each other is in the same cluster, whereas independent evidence would be in a new cluster) and then runs the probabilistic numbers to “update their priors”. [...] Even for a scientific question such as to the origin of SARS-CoV-2, he believes his epistemological approach more reliable than anything else, including the scientific method. And that is where the trouble started for him.AI Verified (Feb 22, 2024)
Policy proposals and claims
votes Against
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote is directly about using a Bayesian-style probabilistic framework—defining hypotheses, grouping evidence, and “update their priors”—to resolve the SARS-CoV-2 origins question, and the surrounding article presents this as a criticized alternative to the scientific method. That makes the author’s stance on the complete statement substantially more likely to be determinable. ([protagonist-science.medium.com](https://protagonist-science.medium.com/lableak-truther-loses-100-000-in-his-own-debate-0c3930ccd443))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 1h ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
The author is criticizing a Bayesian-style approach: Rootclaim "runs the probabilistic numbers to 'update their priors'," but the quote says the "devil is... in the details and implementation" and that treating this approach as "more reliable than anything else, including the scientific method" is "where the trouble started." In the article’s context, this is contrasted with evidence-based scientific analysis, so the author most likely rejects Bayesian analysis as the framework that should settle the COVID-origins question.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 1h ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
The supplied Medium article is fetchable, and the quoted text appears there verbatim apart from the permitted omission marked with [...]: the first part is at lines 68-69, and the second part continues at lines 74-76. The same page shows the byline "Philipp Markolin" and the publication date "Feb 22, 2024," so the stored author, date, source URL, and content all match. ([protagonist-science.medium.com](https://protagonist-science.medium.com/lableak-truther-loses-100-000-in-his-own-debate-0c3930ccd443))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 1h ago
replying to Philipp Markolin