We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Will Van Treuren
Microbiologist and immunologist with a Stanford PhD; Rootclaim COVID-origins debate judge
I am skeptical that the Bayesian decision making/evaluation methods are any more "objective" than [intuitive reasoning]. I think they maximize legibility, not objectivity, and tend to hide the intuitive/heuristic portion in the data inclusion step and values, where it’s harder to see . . . I am not skilled in the Bayesian method, and I am sure I made significant mistakes. More time and practice would improve and refine my estimates. At the fundamental rules of the universe level, Bayesian analysis must be the best way to evaluate evidence. However, I am unsure that it’s a good strategy for a human given our cognitive limitations, and doubly unsure it’s truly being used (in the dispassionate sense) where the outcome is social desirability/fame/Twitter likes.AI Verified (Mar 28, 2024)
Policy proposals and claims
votes Against
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
Yes. In context of the COVID origins debate, the quote is directly about whether Bayesian analysis is the right way to evaluate the evidence. It explicitly says Bayesian analysis "must be the best way to evaluate evidence" at the fundamental level, even while qualifying that it may be a poor human strategy, so the stance is clear enough to evaluate in the vote pass.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17
· 1h ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
He says Bayesian methods are not necessarily more “objective” than intuition, that they “maximize legibility, not objectivity,” and that they may not be a good strategy for humans; the article also notes the judges treated the numbers as only a supplement to intuitive reasoning, so he does not endorse Bayesian analysis as the right way to settle the COVID origins question. ([astralcodexten.com](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17
· 1h ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
Astral Codex Ten quotes this passage verbatim as Judge Will’s decision in the March 28, 2024 post, and Rootclaim identifies Will Van Treuren as one of the judges with a written decision. The quote in the post matches the provided text exactly, so the source URL contains it and the attribution is correct. ([astralcodexten.com](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim?hide_intro_popup=true))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17
· 1h ago
replying to Will Van Treuren