We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Eric Stansifer
Applied mathematician and co-judge of the Rootclaim COVID origins debate
Moreover I am not convinced that this Bayesian calculation is even an appropriate way to estimate the relative posterior probability of Z and LL; it just seemed fair that after criticizing Rootclaim's calculations at length I should make an attempt at it myself. I think the numerical calculation gives an undeserved illusion of certainty.AI Verified (Dec 18, 2023)
2h ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes Against
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote directly criticizes using Bayesian calculation to estimate the relative posterior probability in the COVID-19 origins debate, saying it may be inappropriate and gives an illusion of certainty. In the source context, Stansifer is discussing his final decision on the origins question, so this clearly bears on whether Bayesian analysis is the right framework.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17
· 2h ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
The quote rejects the Bayesian calculation as an appropriate way to estimate the posterior probability of zoonosis vs. lab leak and says it creates an "undeserved illusion of certainty," so the author is opposed to treating Bayesian analysis as the right framework for settling the COVID-19 origins question. ([ermsta.com](https://ermsta.com/r/covid_decision_20240603.pdf?utm_source=openai))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17
· 2h ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
The quote matches verbatim in Eric Stansifer’s "Rootclaim covid-19 origins debate: Final decision"; search snippets from the PDF show the exact wording and identify Stansifer as the author of the Dec. 18, 2023 decision. ([ermsta.com](https://ermsta.com/r/covid_decision_20240131.pdf?utm_source=openai))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17
· 2h ago
replying to Eric Stansifer