YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by viking_math

Human avatar
LessWrong author writing on Bayesian reasoning and uncertainty
In Rootclaim’s most recent COVID origins analysis, the single strongest piece of evidence is “12 nucleotides clean insertion,” which they claim is 20x more likely in lab leak (after out-of-model correction). [...] So, they do not have any evidence that, across all cases when researchers might try to add an FCS to a virus, they use a “12 nucleotide clean insertion” 1 time out of 10. They simply provide a guess, based on their own lack of knowledge. This is exactly the error described above: For all they actually know, the true frequency of this behavior could be 1/1,000, an error of 100x, or it could be even worse.
AI Verified (Jan 10, 2026)
Source:
viking_math, “The false confidence theorem and Bayesian reasoning,” LessWrong, January 10, 2026.
Like Share on X 1h 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

Statement relation comments

AI Verified The quote is directly about a Bayesian COVID-origins analysis and argues that its key likelihood ratio is a guess driven by ignorance, concluding that the proper result is to remain uncertain rather than claim strong evidence. That squarely addresses whether Bayesian analysis is an appropriate framework for settling the origins question and makes a non-supportive stance substantially more likely. ([lesswrong.com](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HjbsjnutKE9xbXBwz/the-false-confidence-theorem-and-bayesian-reasoning)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 1h ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The author is criticizing COVID-origins Bayesian analyses, not endorsing them: he says Rootclaim’s key likelihood is merely a "guess" from "lack of knowledge," calls this "exactly the error described above," and says "the only valid conclusion" is that one "must remain uncertain." That strongly implies opposition to Bayesian analysis as the framework for settling the question, even if the critique is aimed at this style of Bayesian use rather than every possible Bayesian method. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 1h ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified The supplied LessWrong URL is fetchable and contains the quoted text verbatim on the page (the submitter’s [...] is a valid omission between the opening sentence and the later paragraph). The same page shows the byline "viking_math" and the date "10th Jan 2026," so the quote is correctly attributed and dated. ([lesswrong.com](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HjbsjnutKE9xbXBwz/the-false-confidence-theorem-and-bayesian-reasoning)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 1h ago
replying to viking_math