We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Matt Ridley
British science writer and peer
Instead, Ridley described his argument as a "good old Bayesian thing, you add up all the probabilities until you get to a final result," or a court case in which a jury reaches the most reasonable conclusion.AI Verified (Mar 20, 2026)
2h ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes For
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote directly endorses a Bayesian approach to evaluating the COVID origins question (“good old Bayesian thing”) and frames it as the method for reaching the most reasonable conclusion. In the article context, Ridley is using this to argue for the lab-leak case, so the stance on the statement is clearly determinable as support.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17
· 2h ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
Ridley calls his argument a “good old Bayesian thing” that adds probabilities to reach “a final result,” like a jury reaching the “most reasonable conclusion,” which strongly implies he thinks Bayesian analysis is the right framework for deciding COVID origins. ([washingtonexaminer.com](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/4499282/nih-lecture-making-case-covid-originated-chinese-lab/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17
· 2h ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
The Washington Examiner article by Gabrielle M. Etzel (published Mar. 20, 2026) contains the same wording attributed to Matt Ridley: “good old Bayesian thing, you add up all the probabilities until you get to a final result,” followed by the jury comparison. The source URL matches the quote and attribution. ([washingtonexaminer.com](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/healthcare/4499282/nih-lecture-making-case-covid-originated-chinese-lab/))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17
· 2h ago
replying to Matt Ridley