4 ms·

It appears reasonable to assign COVID lab leak hypothesis a higher prior, in Bayesian terms, just based on the many institutions/individuals whose image/status

It appears reasonable to assign COVID lab leak hypothesis a higher prior, in Bayesian terms, just based on the many institutions/individuals whose image/status would it directly or indirectly damage if found true (NIH, DARPA, the US, WIV, CCP), and which therefore would be compelled to paint it as unlikely.

hackerlight 4y ago
Obviously flawed logic. Switch COVID lab leak hypothesis to 9/11 inside job, JFK CIA hit, Hitler moon base, and you'll see why.
- goblin89 4y ago
  For the record, I have come to think I misused the term “prior”. If you consider those as viable hypotheses in the first place then sure. In current context there is a binary choice between two already established and well-informed hypotheses of similarly high likelihoods, and if one of them is significantly more favorable to a party with control over evidence we might expect a stronger proof.
Garlef 4y ago
This seems to be a fallacy as it can be applied to anything. Here's an example illustrating how bad of an argument that is: It appears to be reasonable to assign the "your mother is a [insert derogatory term]" hypothesis a higher prior, in Bayesian terms, just based on the many familiy members whose image/status would it directly or indirectly damage if found true (your dad, your uncle, your sister, your grandparents), and which therefore would be compelled to paint it as unlikely.
- dxuh 4y ago
  I fully agree with your point, but I think the example is a bit aggressive towards OP. I'm sure you got a good chuckle of out of this, but I think it would have been better to give an example that did not seem like an attack. For example the earth being flat, the moon landing being fake or something like that.
  - Garlef 4y ago
    Agreed. Also, I'm not happy that I used and reproduced negative connotations about prostitution (that are deeply rooted in patriarchical control of female sexuality and reproduction). But I choose to keep this non-insult since it has a very strong impact in just a few words due to the high cognitive dissonance it causes. (Partly responsible for the chuckle you mentioned). The earth being flat is not a good substitute btw since it's also in the topos of conspiracy theories thus reducing the cognitive dissonance. But I'd be happy for other suggestions.
    - swores 4y ago
      "a mass murderer" would work well
- goblin89 4y ago
  Your analogy is harmful to the topic under discussion: its key assumptions (such as comparing the governments of US and China to my family in terms of power and influence) render it inapplicable. > It appears to be reasonable to assign the "your mother is a [insert derogatory term]" hypothesis a higher prior, in Bayesian terms, just based on the many familiy members whose image/status would it directly or indirectly damage if found true (your dad, your uncle, your sister, your grandparents), and which therefore would be compelled to paint it as unlikely. If something major happened that made it a difficult binary choice between either that and <insert an alternative>, then certainly it would be reasonable to assign appropriate priors if you were forming your opinion exclusively by interviewing my relatives. (On the other hand, if my family members or relatives were in positions of significant power/esteem/status that they stood to lose if what you say were true, had significant social influence and a degree of control over mass media, then reweighing priors in such fashion would be advisable regardless of your source.)
  - Garlef 4y ago
    > comparing the governments of US and China to my family Hi there. My intention was not to make this about your literal family. The "your" was intended to refer to a general addressee. Sry for that.
    - goblin89 4y ago
      I was not offended. I concede to arguments raised by other repliers regarding my misuse (or at least very unorthodox use) of the term “prior”, but still find an objection based on your analogy ill-founded. Your analogy more or less supports my point (which I, to be fair, expressed badly).
RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
Along the same line of thinking, the fact that although the lab leak hypothesis is very reasonable, it was branded as a conspiracy theory and a big effort was made to suppress it, makes it seem more likely. Also the principle of adverse interference. China destroyed/made unavailable a lot of documents. It is reasonable to infer that the destroyed documents had evidence of a lab leak.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jtc331 4y ago
I think the better argument isn’t so much about status: it should have a higher prior because the institutions denying it as a possibility were the very ones funding the category of research that could plausibly result in such an incident. This is the same kind of issue as why it’s important to separate the regulator from the regulated.
Mordisquitos 4y ago
That is not a valid reason for a higher Bayesian prior of the lab leak hypothesis. A prior is that, a prior: the fact that many institutions would see their reputation damaged in the event of a known lab leak has no effect on making a lab leak event more likely to happen a priori. In fact, it would make much more sense to argue the opposite (not that I would necessarily agree with this reasoning either). The fact that so many institutions would see their reputation damaged if a lab leak was known to have happened makes it less likely for the virus having originated from a lab leak a priori, as said institutions would put in place strong measures to avoid it. On the Bayesian level though, what can make sense would be to argue that the fact that so many institutions would be damaged post hoc if a lab leak were to be known, then the weight of evidence against the event which has been provided by such institutions should be lower.
- goblin89 4y ago
  > On the Bayesian level though, what can make sense would be to argue that the fact that so many institutions would be damaged post hoc if a lab leak were to be known, then the weight of evidence against the event which has been provided by such institutions should be lower. Wouldn’t weighing evidence play a key role in assessing relative likelihoods of two possible causes of an event that had already occurred? Especially since any remaining evidence is not conclusive. (As it happens, there appears to be evidence of some of the parties involved acting in ways that prevent further evidence gathering, too.)
  - Mordisquitos 4y ago
    > Wouldn’t weighing evidence play a key role in assessing relative likelihoods of two possible causes of an event that had already occurred? Absolutely, yes. However, it would not affect the priors.
- mring33621 4y ago
  "as said institutions would put in place strong measures to avoid it" I was going to joke, but this is NOT TRUE AT ALL Based on my life experience, a more correct idea is, "as said institutions would put in place strong measures to avoid appearing to have caused it" This tilts the argument back the other way. Look, I don't know about lab vs natural origins of COVID-19, but I do know that big, human orgs tend to have more CYA theater than actual preventative measures in place.
gausswho 4y ago
Conversely, when I read advocacy that speculates motive in this way, I note the absence of deductive reason.
FullStackAda 4y ago
I am not sure this is a reasonable assignment of priors. The existence of people who could be blamed is not an argument towards the crime happened.
- goblin89 4y ago
  > The existence of people who could be blamed is not an argument towards the crime happened I support neither treating an accidental leak (if it occurred) as a crime, nor blaming any individual for it. That aside, the key is not quite “existence of people who could be blamed” but “existence of people who stand to (or think they stand to) lose a lot in terms of image/power/funding and have a certain degree of influence over the outcome”. (Before you ask why am I not blaming Bill Gates for this pandemic then, there are of course other considerations that go into weighing priors. Using only this factor alone makes it indistinguishable from conspiracy theorising.)
jongjong 4y ago
The evidence certainly seems to point in that direction and the absence of an official conclusion seems to support this... It should be easy to rule out the leak hypothesis. The fact that those who are implicated appear to be unable to clear their names by providing counter-evidence suggests foul play.
ChrisLomont 4y ago
Changing a prior after the fact is the opposite of reasonable. It's called a prior for a reason.
- goblin89 4y ago
  Is it a misapplication of the term “prior likelihood” if it’s used to mean “prior likelihood of a given explanation for a past event turning out to be accurate later”?
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    Yes, that is still a misapplication. A perfect coin has a 50/50 chance for heads. That is a prior. Getting 10 heads in a row does not change that prior. Getting 1 billion heads in a row does not change that prior. Unlikely outcomes don't change the prior. The prior is the probability distribution of beliefs before evidence is taken into account.
    - goblin89 4y ago
      I agree if we’re considering the prior probability of lab leak vs. spillover, where priors can be informed by e.g. laboratory biosecurity track record and such. However, what about the prior probability of a good-faith statement in presence of a strong conflict of interest? Having no ability to directly verify the truth, wouldn’t you require stronger evidence if you were to rely on that statement in your decision-making?
      - ChrisLomont 4y ago
        >what about the prior probability of a good-faith statement in presence of a strong conflict of interest? The definition of your prior would incorporate that. >Having no ability to directly verify the truth, wouldn’t you require stronger evidence if you were to rely on that statement in your decision-making? That is exactly the purpose of priors and Bayesian belief systems. If you could verify any truth, you'd not need a prior or Bayesian probability concepts for that. In none of these cases do you change the prior after some evidence is obtained, You'd use the prior and Bayesian update to make a new belief, which is then the prior for making decisions as future evidence is obtained. Retroactively changing the prior is demonstrably bad at reaching the proper conclusions over time. E.T. Jaynes "Probability Theory" [1] has detailed proofs of all of this, covered in the first few chapters. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/probability-theory/9CA08E224FF30123304E6D8935CF1A99 https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/probability-theory/9CA0...

hackerlight 4y ago

Obviously flawed logic. Switch COVID lab leak hypothesis to 9/11 inside job, JFK CIA hit, Hitler moon base, and you'll see why.

goblin89 4y ago
For the record, I have come to think I misused the term “prior”. If you consider those as viable hypotheses in the first place then sure. In current context there is a binary choice between two already established and well-informed hypotheses of similarly high likelihoods, and if one of them is significantly more favorable to a party with control over evidence we might expect a stronger proof.

Garlef 4y ago

This seems to be a fallacy as it can be applied to anything. Here's an example illustrating how bad of an argument that is: It appears to be reasonable to assign the "your mother is a [insert derogatory term]" hypothesis a higher prior, in Bayesian terms, just based on the many familiy members whose image/status would it directly or indirectly damage if found true (your dad, your uncle, your sister, your grandparents), and which therefore would be compelled to paint it as unlikely.

dxuh 4y ago
I fully agree with your point, but I think the example is a bit aggressive towards OP. I'm sure you got a good chuckle of out of this, but I think it would have been better to give an example that did not seem like an attack. For example the earth being flat, the moon landing being fake or something like that.
- Garlef 4y ago
  Agreed. Also, I'm not happy that I used and reproduced negative connotations about prostitution (that are deeply rooted in patriarchical control of female sexuality and reproduction). But I choose to keep this non-insult since it has a very strong impact in just a few words due to the high cognitive dissonance it causes. (Partly responsible for the chuckle you mentioned). The earth being flat is not a good substitute btw since it's also in the topos of conspiracy theories thus reducing the cognitive dissonance. But I'd be happy for other suggestions.
  - swores 4y ago
    "a mass murderer" would work well
goblin89 4y ago
Your analogy is harmful to the topic under discussion: its key assumptions (such as comparing the governments of US and China to my family in terms of power and influence) render it inapplicable. > It appears to be reasonable to assign the "your mother is a [insert derogatory term]" hypothesis a higher prior, in Bayesian terms, just based on the many familiy members whose image/status would it directly or indirectly damage if found true (your dad, your uncle, your sister, your grandparents), and which therefore would be compelled to paint it as unlikely. If something major happened that made it a difficult binary choice between either that and <insert an alternative>, then certainly it would be reasonable to assign appropriate priors if you were forming your opinion exclusively by interviewing my relatives. (On the other hand, if my family members or relatives were in positions of significant power/esteem/status that they stood to lose if what you say were true, had significant social influence and a degree of control over mass media, then reweighing priors in such fashion would be advisable regardless of your source.)
- Garlef 4y ago
  > comparing the governments of US and China to my family Hi there. My intention was not to make this about your literal family. The "your" was intended to refer to a general addressee. Sry for that.
  - goblin89 4y ago
    I was not offended. I concede to arguments raised by other repliers regarding my misuse (or at least very unorthodox use) of the term “prior”, but still find an objection based on your analogy ill-founded. Your analogy more or less supports my point (which I, to be fair, expressed badly).

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago

Along the same line of thinking, the fact that although the lab leak hypothesis is very reasonable, it was branded as a conspiracy theory and a big effort was made to suppress it, makes it seem more likely. Also the principle of adverse interference. China destroyed/made unavailable a lot of documents. It is reasonable to infer that the destroyed documents had evidence of a lab leak.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jtc331 4y ago

I think the better argument isn’t so much about status: it should have a higher prior because the institutions denying it as a possibility were the very ones funding the category of research that could plausibly result in such an incident. This is the same kind of issue as why it’s important to separate the regulator from the regulated.

Mordisquitos 4y ago

That is not a valid reason for a higher Bayesian prior of the lab leak hypothesis. A prior is that, a prior: the fact that many institutions would see their reputation damaged in the event of a known lab leak has no effect on making a lab leak event more likely to happen a priori. In fact, it would make much more sense to argue the opposite (not that I would necessarily agree with this reasoning either). The fact that so many institutions would see their reputation damaged if a lab leak was known to have happened makes it less likely for the virus having originated from a lab leak a priori, as said institutions would put in place strong measures to avoid it. On the Bayesian level though, what can make sense would be to argue that the fact that so many institutions would be damaged post hoc if a lab leak were to be known, then the weight of evidence against the event which has been provided by such institutions should be lower.

goblin89 4y ago
> On the Bayesian level though, what can make sense would be to argue that the fact that so many institutions would be damaged post hoc if a lab leak were to be known, then the weight of evidence against the event which has been provided by such institutions should be lower. Wouldn’t weighing evidence play a key role in assessing relative likelihoods of two possible causes of an event that had already occurred? Especially since any remaining evidence is not conclusive. (As it happens, there appears to be evidence of some of the parties involved acting in ways that prevent further evidence gathering, too.)
- Mordisquitos 4y ago
  > Wouldn’t weighing evidence play a key role in assessing relative likelihoods of two possible causes of an event that had already occurred? Absolutely, yes. However, it would not affect the priors.
mring33621 4y ago
"as said institutions would put in place strong measures to avoid it" I was going to joke, but this is NOT TRUE AT ALL Based on my life experience, a more correct idea is, "as said institutions would put in place strong measures to avoid appearing to have caused it" This tilts the argument back the other way. Look, I don't know about lab vs natural origins of COVID-19, but I do know that big, human orgs tend to have more CYA theater than actual preventative measures in place.

gausswho 4y ago

Conversely, when I read advocacy that speculates motive in this way, I note the absence of deductive reason.

FullStackAda 4y ago

I am not sure this is a reasonable assignment of priors. The existence of people who could be blamed is not an argument towards the crime happened.

goblin89 4y ago
> The existence of people who could be blamed is not an argument towards the crime happened I support neither treating an accidental leak (if it occurred) as a crime, nor blaming any individual for it. That aside, the key is not quite “existence of people who could be blamed” but “existence of people who stand to (or think they stand to) lose a lot in terms of image/power/funding and have a certain degree of influence over the outcome”. (Before you ask why am I not blaming Bill Gates for this pandemic then, there are of course other considerations that go into weighing priors. Using only this factor alone makes it indistinguishable from conspiracy theorising.)

jongjong 4y ago

The evidence certainly seems to point in that direction and the absence of an official conclusion seems to support this... It should be easy to rule out the leak hypothesis. The fact that those who are implicated appear to be unable to clear their names by providing counter-evidence suggests foul play.

ChrisLomont 4y ago

Changing a prior after the fact is the opposite of reasonable. It's called a prior for a reason.

goblin89 4y ago
Is it a misapplication of the term “prior likelihood” if it’s used to mean “prior likelihood of a given explanation for a past event turning out to be accurate later”?
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  Yes, that is still a misapplication. A perfect coin has a 50/50 chance for heads. That is a prior. Getting 10 heads in a row does not change that prior. Getting 1 billion heads in a row does not change that prior. Unlikely outcomes don't change the prior. The prior is the probability distribution of beliefs before evidence is taken into account.
  - goblin89 4y ago
    I agree if we’re considering the prior probability of lab leak vs. spillover, where priors can be informed by e.g. laboratory biosecurity track record and such. However, what about the prior probability of a good-faith statement in presence of a strong conflict of interest? Having no ability to directly verify the truth, wouldn’t you require stronger evidence if you were to rely on that statement in your decision-making?
    - ChrisLomont 4y ago
      >what about the prior probability of a good-faith statement in presence of a strong conflict of interest? The definition of your prior would incorporate that. >Having no ability to directly verify the truth, wouldn’t you require stronger evidence if you were to rely on that statement in your decision-making? That is exactly the purpose of priors and Bayesian belief systems. If you could verify any truth, you'd not need a prior or Bayesian probability concepts for that. In none of these cases do you change the prior after some evidence is obtained, You'd use the prior and Bayesian update to make a new belief, which is then the prior for making decisions as future evidence is obtained. Retroactively changing the prior is demonstrably bad at reaching the proper conclusions over time. E.T. Jaynes "Probability Theory" [1] has detailed proofs of all of this, covered in the first few chapters. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/probability-theory/9CA08E224FF30123304E6D8935CF1A99 https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/probability-theory/9CA0...