2 ms·

It could be, but censorship doesn't increase its probability. All it shows is the authorities don't like it. Your argument that they'd use facts if it were fals

It could be, but censorship doesn't increase its probability. All it shows is the authorities don't like it. Your argument that they'd use facts if it were false is not relevant here because nobody knows which way the facts point.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
This is actually a pretty good example. Suppose nobody knows, so the probability is ~50%. Now suppose there is any non-zero percent chance that they did know and the reason it was censored is that they didn't want to inculpate themselves. Then knowing that it was censored puts the percentage above 50%, right? It's a sliver of evidence in favor of the possibility that it could have been censored to hide the truth, in which case there was a truth to hide.
- civilized 5y ago
  I don't see how guessing that something was hidden because it was true is evidence that it is true. Guesswork isn't evidence.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    Say that before there is any censorship, we start with a probability of 50%. People disagree, we don't know, it's plausible but not proven, that's our best guess. Then censorship occurs. This is new information. Evidence. If the censorship occurred because they don't like the speculation but they don't know any better than you, this doesn't affect the probability, because it's not dependent on whether the idea is true. If the censorship occurred because it was true and they wanted to suppress it, it was true. If there is any non-zero probability that this is what happened, the censorship is some evidence that it did, so the existence of the censorship increases the probability that it was true from 50% to some higher amount. If censorship only happened for the second reason then the calculation would be easy. If censorship happened, the probability that it was true would be 100%. It can happen for both reasons, so depending on how likely each reason is, the probability given censorship increases proportional to how likely that was to be the cause of the censorship. But unless the probability of the second alternative is zero, it increases by some.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - civilized 5y ago
      > If the censorship occurred because it was true and they wanted to suppress it, it was true. I get what you're saying with this analysis, I just don't think it's relevant in this case. The inconsistent and weak suppression by random social media websites isn't what you'd expect if some actually powerful authorities with an actual interest in concealing the lab leak truth were involved in suppressing it. Your analysis applies best to Peter Daszak, who may have insider info about what WIV was doing and who has clearly been trying to cover his ass from the beginning. But his behavior is equally consistent with a generalized anxiety about what may be uncovered if there is an investigation, because he knows (like we all do) that lab leaks have a long history. China's behavior is also consistent with generalized anxiety without regard for truth. China zealously suppresses uncontrolled information spread out of fear of what might become widely believed, but they are not at all precise or rational about it. For example, they footgunned themselves by suppressing a doctor's report that SARS had resurfaced in Wuhan. As it turned out, this was false, but it was not far off from the truth. It was not in their interest to suppress this information -- they should have reacted with aggressive investigation and containment measures, as they did several weeks later. But their instinct to censor uncontrolled information of any kind, without regard to truth, is too powerful and too reflexive. The fact that China suppressed an incorrect but informative report should give you an idea of the weakness of the connection between suppression and truth. They would have also suppressed the report if it had been both untrue and completely uninformative.
      - mandmandam 5y ago
        > The inconsistent and weak suppression by random social media websites Um, millions of posts on Facebook and Twitter were removed. Not very inconsistent, weak, or random - and certainly not warranted by scientific evidence or Daszak's analysis. As for China's behaviour, it has been very consistent about keeping independent investigations well the fuck away from Wuhan; and I don't really give a shit what their reason for that is.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

This is actually a pretty good example. Suppose nobody knows, so the probability is ~50%. Now suppose there is any non-zero percent chance that they did know and the reason it was censored is that they didn't want to inculpate themselves. Then knowing that it was censored puts the percentage above 50%, right? It's a sliver of evidence in favor of the possibility that it could have been censored to hide the truth, in which case there was a truth to hide.

civilized 5y ago
I don't see how guessing that something was hidden because it was true is evidence that it is true. Guesswork isn't evidence.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  Say that before there is any censorship, we start with a probability of 50%. People disagree, we don't know, it's plausible but not proven, that's our best guess. Then censorship occurs. This is new information. Evidence. If the censorship occurred because they don't like the speculation but they don't know any better than you, this doesn't affect the probability, because it's not dependent on whether the idea is true. If the censorship occurred because it was true and they wanted to suppress it, it was true. If there is any non-zero probability that this is what happened, the censorship is some evidence that it did, so the existence of the censorship increases the probability that it was true from 50% to some higher amount. If censorship only happened for the second reason then the calculation would be easy. If censorship happened, the probability that it was true would be 100%. It can happen for both reasons, so depending on how likely each reason is, the probability given censorship increases proportional to how likely that was to be the cause of the censorship. But unless the probability of the second alternative is zero, it increases by some.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - civilized 5y ago
    > If the censorship occurred because it was true and they wanted to suppress it, it was true. I get what you're saying with this analysis, I just don't think it's relevant in this case. The inconsistent and weak suppression by random social media websites isn't what you'd expect if some actually powerful authorities with an actual interest in concealing the lab leak truth were involved in suppressing it. Your analysis applies best to Peter Daszak, who may have insider info about what WIV was doing and who has clearly been trying to cover his ass from the beginning. But his behavior is equally consistent with a generalized anxiety about what may be uncovered if there is an investigation, because he knows (like we all do) that lab leaks have a long history. China's behavior is also consistent with generalized anxiety without regard for truth. China zealously suppresses uncontrolled information spread out of fear of what might become widely believed, but they are not at all precise or rational about it. For example, they footgunned themselves by suppressing a doctor's report that SARS had resurfaced in Wuhan. As it turned out, this was false, but it was not far off from the truth. It was not in their interest to suppress this information -- they should have reacted with aggressive investigation and containment measures, as they did several weeks later. But their instinct to censor uncontrolled information of any kind, without regard to truth, is too powerful and too reflexive. The fact that China suppressed an incorrect but informative report should give you an idea of the weakness of the connection between suppression and truth. They would have also suppressed the report if it had been both untrue and completely uninformative.
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      > The inconsistent and weak suppression by random social media websites Um, millions of posts on Facebook and Twitter were removed. Not very inconsistent, weak, or random - and certainly not warranted by scientific evidence or Daszak's analysis. As for China's behaviour, it has been very consistent about keeping independent investigations well the fuck away from Wuhan; and I don't really give a shit what their reason for that is.