We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by RussellThor
LessWrong commenter on Bayesian reasoning and the Rootclaim COVID origins debate
Both sides attempted Bayesian estimates and probabilities and got absolutely absurd differences in estimates. Rootclaim failed to impress me - the takeaway I got is that they are well suited to say murder cases where there is history to go off, but when it comes to such a large messy, one-off event as COVID origins they didn't know what evidence to include, how to properly weight it etc. [...] More generally this led me to distrust Bayesian inference type methods in complicated situations.AI Verified (2024)
1h ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes Against
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
Directly on the complete statement: in the source context, the author is discussing the COVID-origins debate itself, says both sides used Bayesian estimates, criticizes how that evidence was selected and weighted, and concludes this made them distrust Bayesian-inference methods in complicated cases like COVID origins. That gives a clear, determinable stance signal about whether Bayesian analysis is the right framework here. ([lesswrong.com](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FNRAKirZDJRBH7BDh/russellthor-s-shortform))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 1h ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
Against: the author says the COVID-origins debate's Bayesian estimates produced "absolutely absurd differences," that Rootclaim "didn't know what evidence to include, how to properly weight it," and that this "led me to distrust Bayesian inference type methods in complicated situations." That strongly implies Bayesian analysis is not the right framework for settling this question.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 1h ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
Confirmed on the cited LessWrong URL: the page is "RussellThor's Shortform" by RussellThor, and lines 695-709 contain the submitted wording with the same attribution. The submitted [...] corresponds to intervening source text between the quoted sentence ending in "etc." and the later sentence beginning "More generally," so this is a faithful excerpt rather than a fabrication or misattribution. ([lesswrong.com](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FNRAKirZDJRBH7BDh/russellthor-s-shortform))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 1h ago
replying to RussellThor