You did the same thing Peter Miller did in the first rootclaim debate just for the opposite side: you multiplied the probability estimates of every unlikely evidence under your disfavored hypothesis, observed that it is a small number then said a mere paragraph about how this number isn’t that small under your favored hypothesis.
To spell it out explicitly: When calculating the probability for your favored hypothesis you should similarly consider the pieces of evidence which are unlikely under that hypothesis!! Generally, some pieces of evidence will be unlikely for one side and likely for the other, you can’t just select the evidence favorable for your side!
What pieces of circumstantial evidence are unlikely under the Lab Leak hypothesis?
I don’t think evidence should generally be two-sided. E.g. imagine a game that’s an amateur versus Magnus Carlsen, but you don’t know who is white and who is black. If you look at the outcomes of moves as individual bits, it will be very one-sided.
Cases clustering at wetmarket, proline at fcs, otherwise suboptimal fcs, out of frame insertion, WIV scientists’ behavior after leak (talking about adding fcs to coronavirus in december, going to dinner, publishing ratg13), secret backbone virus not known (for some reason sars not used like in other fcs insertion studies), 2 lineages at market just off the top of my head
The nearest virus to COVID-19 we know to be likely in possession of the WIV was the one from Laos, not ratg13.
Publishing a sequence from a virus that comes from China like ratg13 and not from Laos might be a move they took to make it more plausible that a relative of the virus from the Chinese cave naturally spilled over.
One big one is that the first big spreading event happened at a wet market where people and animals are in close proximity. You could check densely peopled places within some proximity of the lab to figure out how surprising it is that it happened in a wet market, but certainly animal spillover is much more likely where there are animals.
Edit: also it’s honestly kind of a bad sign that you aren’t aware of evidence that tends against your favored explanation, since that mostly happens during motivated reasoning.
I’m avoiding that as I don’t understand the data provenance/cover-up potential.
The point of this post is to process just the “clean” data—stuff that interested parties such as WIV, Ecohealth and WHO could not have changed or affected.
Of course others should try to look into that and work out what’s going on.
You did the same thing Peter Miller did in the first rootclaim debate just for the opposite side: you multiplied the probability estimates of every unlikely evidence under your disfavored hypothesis, observed that it is a small number then said a mere paragraph about how this number isn’t that small under your favored hypothesis.
To spell it out explicitly: When calculating the probability for your favored hypothesis you should similarly consider the pieces of evidence which are unlikely under that hypothesis!! Generally, some pieces of evidence will be unlikely for one side and likely for the other, you can’t just select the evidence favorable for your side!
What pieces of circumstantial evidence are unlikely under the Lab Leak hypothesis?
I don’t think evidence should generally be two-sided. E.g. imagine a game that’s an amateur versus Magnus Carlsen, but you don’t know who is white and who is black. If you look at the outcomes of moves as individual bits, it will be very one-sided.
Cases clustering at wetmarket, proline at fcs, otherwise suboptimal fcs, out of frame insertion, WIV scientists’ behavior after leak (talking about adding fcs to coronavirus in december, going to dinner, publishing ratg13), secret backbone virus not known (for some reason sars not used like in other fcs insertion studies), 2 lineages at market just off the top of my head
The nearest virus to COVID-19 we know to be likely in possession of the WIV was the one from Laos, not ratg13.
Publishing a sequence from a virus that comes from China like ratg13 and not from Laos might be a move they took to make it more plausible that a relative of the virus from the Chinese cave naturally spilled over.
hmmm interesting
wait, they talked about adding a FCS? Where?
The first part of the third rootclaim debate covers the behavior of the scientists from 53:10 https://youtu.be/6sOcdexHKnk?si=7-WVlgl5rNEyjJvX
I have never heard of this, where can I find out more?
The second part of the second rootclaim debate (90 minutes) https://youtu.be/FLnXVflOjMo?si=dPAi1BsZTATxEglP
thx
One big one is that the first big spreading event happened at a wet market where people and animals are in close proximity. You could check densely peopled places within some proximity of the lab to figure out how surprising it is that it happened in a wet market, but certainly animal spillover is much more likely where there are animals.
Edit: also it’s honestly kind of a bad sign that you aren’t aware of evidence that tends against your favored explanation, since that mostly happens during motivated reasoning.
I’m avoiding that as I don’t understand the data provenance/cover-up potential.
The point of this post is to process just the “clean” data—stuff that interested parties such as WIV, Ecohealth and WHO could not have changed or affected.
Of course others should try to look into that and work out what’s going on.