User talk:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin?

"Wikipedia:LABLEAK" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:LABLEAK. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 19 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, there's actually a fair amount of evidence that the virus didn't emerge near the WIV at all
See WP:NOLABLEAK sections Wuhan was likely not the origin and Viruses typically cross over rurally, then are first detected in cities and also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19/Archive_14.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 16:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(edited)-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 04:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Bayes
let us assume, without loss of generality

Your logic fails right there. See below.

A disease starting close to a lab is as much a reason for believing it came from there as taking homeopathy before getting better is a reason for believing you got better because of the magic sugar pill, that is, not a reason at all. Rather, it is a fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The Bayes theorem is used for shenanigans like this all the time. You put in some fantasy probability number, and use Bayes to increase it. Duh. So what? This is nothing but the above fallacy packed into the type of math you learn at school, useful for impressing people who either didn't learn it in the first place or "learned it" but could not make heads or tails of it. But not those who actually understand what it means.

According to Einstein, "common sense" is just "the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18". I am not saying this as an argumentum ad verecundiam, but to make it clear to you that using the phrase "common sense" just does not work as well on people who know how science works. Wikipedia is not the place for parading fallacious reasoning in pages starting with WP. The WP redirect to this bullshit should be deleted.

I am aware that there is evidence that when you tell gullible, anti-vax, xenophobic, Trump-voting morons (seems to be a bit of redundancy here, but all of the words are necessary, sorry) that the Chinese are behind a disease, they are more likely to get a shot and decrease the number of total deaths, but Wikipedia should not do the wrong thing even in order to manipulate people into doing the right thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: The above WP:Trolling comment was restored by, possibly because the latter is eager to find any argument against mine. The troll above says that the effect in my calculation is just like taking homeopathy before getting better, i.e. $$\Pr\left(\text{getting better}|\text{taking homeopathy}\right)>\Pr\left(\text{getting better}\right)$$. But isn't that just the "placebo effect"? How is that relevant/comparable to a disease starting close to a lab (a strawman they set up that has nothing to do with my argument)? Are they suggesting $$\Pr\left(\text{disease}|\text{close to a lab}\right)>\Pr\left(\text{disease}\right)$$ to be a matter of fact, resulting from some sort of "placebo effect"? Or do they really believe that by conditioning on a quackery event even after proper handling of confounding, there a higher likelihood of being cured? At any rate, it's a very telling sign who is the real quack here.  Normchou   💬 01:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I restored it because I disagree that it's trolling. I think it's a fair criticism of your essay in a similar tone to your essay. But if you think it's WP:TROLLING, then feel free to remove it! I definitely am not interested in "trolling" you.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 04:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It was legitimate criticism, not trolling. Normchou is free to remove legitimate criticism or anything else from their user pages. It should not have been restored. Shibbolethink. please don't do that again. On the other hand, Normchou is 'not free to call other people trolls when they clearly are not. Normchou, please don't do that again. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, my apologies. I thought it was an IP who had blanked the content, not Normchou. Hence why I restored it. But I understand the argument now and won't restore anything that anyone considers "trolling."-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 19:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You cannot refute reasoning by changing the subject, and that is what you are doing here. I said that the logic "a disease starting close to a lab is [..] a reason for believing it came from there" is an instance of the post hoc fallacy, just like the usual justification for homeopathy. The homeopathy part was just a way of emphasizing the fallaciousness of that way of thinking.
 * Then I said that wrapping that logic into the Bayes formula does not make the fallacy go away. There was no connection between homeopathy and Bayes in what I wrote. Yet such a connection is what you tried to refute. That is a strawman argument.


 * The real problem with Bayes is this: You do not only pick the initial likelihood, you also pick the circumstances you want to apply it to. You chose lab-to-first-case proximity, the main reason people give for believing in a lab leak anyway, for modifying your initial 0.1 probability. That is why I said "duh" - of course this computation will increase the likelihood, you know that without doing the actual math. You could instead have picked heaps of other circumstances less easy to understand for non-virologists, such as one of the items in WP:NOLABLEAK, which would have reduced the probability. So, essentially, cherry picking - if something increases the probability, you bayes it, if it would decrease it, you don't. And using the Bayes formula does nothing except hide the cherry-picking part among correct but trivial math that will impress innumerates. Classic pseudoscience trick: dilute the fallacy by adding a lot of irrelevant truth around it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a strawman argumen, refute reasoning by changing the subject are precisely what your WP:TROLLING is all about. Re The homeopathy part was just a way of emphasizing the fallaciousness of that way of thinking, of course it's a "fallacy", because there is an uncontrolled third variable called "placebo", but it has nothing to do with my calculation whatsoever. Re you also pick the circumstances you want to apply it to, yes, I used an example for conditioning just to show how common sense works, but who told you this was the only conditioning that could be applied? Who are you and what qualifies you to judge other people's priors and conditioning such that it would only change the posterior in the direction like? Didn't I say "specific numbers do not matter"? You are full of "science", "pseudoscience", "logic", and whatnot, yet you do not seem to have a basic understanding what my essay is about. As for your nonsense and rantings about Trump voters and so on, what an embarrassment.  Normchou   💬 05:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I asked you nicely, but you decided to do it again. Normchou, the very next time you call another good-faith editor a troll because you don't agree with their argument, we will be discussing your behavior at WP:ANI. Again, if you don't like something posted to your userpage you are free to delete it. You can even delete this, but doing so will be considered evidence that you read it and thus were properly warned. I suggest reviewing WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL before responding. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

June 20, 2021

 * Normchou, with all due respect, I would recommend that you ask one of admins to delete this page. This can be viewed as WP:POINT and does not help you at all. Quite the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your kind reminder, . I am aware that different editors, including both of us, have varying objectives when editing WP as well as different understanding/application of the rules. Normchou   💬 15:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that based on the opinions by uninvolved admins on AE (only they matter) you are close to be topic banned. The argument for the topic ban may be that you disrupt the project by creating this page, by conducting WP:TE discussions on article talk pages and simply not willing to work collaboratively with other contributors. If you prefer to be topic banned, this is your choice. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While authors of references in your essay make some valid points and provide some info, this your essay makes a mockery of the "lab leak".My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Per Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Normchou is indefinitely topic banned from COVID-19, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Research article in Science
26 Jul 2022 research article in Science: The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic

Key quote: "Our analyses indicate that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 occurred via the live wildlife trade in China, and show that the Huanan market was the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic."

Authors:


 * Michael Worobey, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona
 * Joshua I. Levy, Department of Immunology and Microbiology, The Scripps Research Institute
 * Lorena Malpica Serrano, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona
 * Harry Feinstone, Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
 * Jonathan E. Pekar, Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of California San Diego
 * Stephen A. Goldstein, Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah School of Medicine
 * Angela L. Rasmussen, Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization, University of Saskatchewan
 * Moritz U. G. Kraemer, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford
 * Chris Newman, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford
 * Marion P. G. Koopmans, Department of Viroscience, Erasmus University Medical Center Netherlands
 * Marc A. Suchard, Department of Biostatistics, University of California Los Angeles
 * Joel O. Wertheim, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego
 * Philippe Lemey, Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Transplantation, Rega Institute for Medical Research Belgium.
 * David L. Robertson, University of Glasgow Center for Virus Research
 * Robert F. Garry, Tulane University School of Medicine, Department of Microbiology and Immunology
 * Edward C. Holmes, Sydney Institute for Infectious Diseases
 * Andrew Rambaut, Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh
 * Kristian G. Andersen, Department of Immunology and Microbiology, The Scripps Research Institute

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * You also might be interested in this: The rise and fall of the lab leak hypothesis for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)