3 ms·

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 rep

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.
- Mordisquitos 4y ago
  Hence why I explicitly clarified "not that I would necessarily agree with this reasoning either". Whether the premise is correct or not, the argument that it would reduce the prior were the premise to be true is correct. That would not be the case in the initial suggestion, i.e. that the fact that these institutions would lose prestige would somehow increase the base chances of the event happening. Regarding your own interpretation of the argument, i.e. that large human organisations are more likely to have ineffectual preventative measures, therefore increasing the prior probability of a lab leak, that would technically be a valid argument. However, in this case in particular, assuming that premise raises the question "Compared to what?". It's not like there is a cottage industry of artisanal HS4 laboratories that we can say are better at following safety requirements than large ones. I myself have no strong opinion either way regarding the lab-leak vs. natural origin hypotheses. In fact, a while ago I thought of a "consensus" hypothesis, which is that the origin was accidental human infection during sample collection in caves. However, this possibility would fit better with a purely wild-type virus, and thus would not be consistent with the sequence oddities explained in the linked Twitter thread.

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.

Mordisquitos 4y ago
Hence why I explicitly clarified "not that I would necessarily agree with this reasoning either". Whether the premise is correct or not, the argument that it would reduce the prior were the premise to be true is correct. That would not be the case in the initial suggestion, i.e. that the fact that these institutions would lose prestige would somehow increase the base chances of the event happening. Regarding your own interpretation of the argument, i.e. that large human organisations are more likely to have ineffectual preventative measures, therefore increasing the prior probability of a lab leak, that would technically be a valid argument. However, in this case in particular, assuming that premise raises the question "Compared to what?". It's not like there is a cottage industry of artisanal HS4 laboratories that we can say are better at following safety requirements than large ones. I myself have no strong opinion either way regarding the lab-leak vs. natural origin hypotheses. In fact, a while ago I thought of a "consensus" hypothesis, which is that the origin was accidental human infection during sample collection in caves. However, this possibility would fit better with a purely wild-type virus, and thus would not be consistent with the sequence oddities explained in the linked Twitter thread.