What’s the right prior for evaluating an H1N1 conspiracy theory?
I have a friend, educated in biology and business, very rational compared to the average person, who believes that H1N1 was a pharmaceutical company conspiracy. They knew they could make a lot of money by making a less-deadly flu that would extend the flu season to be year round. Because it is very possible for them to engineer such a virus and the corporate leaders are corrupt sociopaths, he thinks it is 80% probable that it was a conspiracy. Again, he thinks that because it was possible for them to do it, they probably did it.
On the other hand, I know the conditions of factory farming and it seems quite plausible and even very likely for such a virus to spontaneously mutate and cross species. So I put the probability at an H1N1 conspiracy at 10%. However, my friend’s argument makes a certain amount of sense to me.
Any such conspiracy would have to be known by quite a few people and so would stand an excellent chance of having the whistle blown on it. Every case I can think of where large Western companies have been caught doing anything like that outrageously evil, they have started with a legitimate profit-making plan, and then done the outrageous evil to hide some problem with it.
They’re almost made up, which makes any attempt at Bayesian analysis not all that meaningful… I’d welcome other tools. He gave me the 80% probability number so I felt obligated to give my own probability.
Consider the numbers to have very wide bounds, or to be more meaningful expressed in words—he thinks there is a conspiracy, I don’t think there is a conspiracy, but neither of us are absolutely confident about it.
he thinks there is a conspiracy, I don’t think there is a conspiracy, but neither of us are absolutely confident about it.
Exactly. I think there is no rational basis for answering your question.
Again, he thinks that because it was possible for them to do it, they probably did it.
Your friend has a distrust of corporate leaders(here I agree with him) and his theory is probably based on his feeling of disgust for their practices. So his theory has probably more of an emotional basis than a rational one. That doesn’t mean it is wrong, just there aren’t any rational reasons for believing it.
What’s the right prior for evaluating an H1N1 conspiracy theory?
I have a friend, educated in biology and business, very rational compared to the average person, who believes that H1N1 was a pharmaceutical company conspiracy. They knew they could make a lot of money by making a less-deadly flu that would extend the flu season to be year round. Because it is very possible for them to engineer such a virus and the corporate leaders are corrupt sociopaths, he thinks it is 80% probable that it was a conspiracy. Again, he thinks that because it was possible for them to do it, they probably did it.
On the other hand, I know the conditions of factory farming and it seems quite plausible and even very likely for such a virus to spontaneously mutate and cross species. So I put the probability at an H1N1 conspiracy at 10%. However, my friend’s argument makes a certain amount of sense to me.
Any such conspiracy would have to be known by quite a few people and so would stand an excellent chance of having the whistle blown on it. Every case I can think of where large Western companies have been caught doing anything like that outrageously evil, they have started with a legitimate profit-making plan, and then done the outrageous evil to hide some problem with it.
Where do those numbers come from? 80%, 10%???
They’re almost made up, which makes any attempt at Bayesian analysis not all that meaningful… I’d welcome other tools. He gave me the 80% probability number so I felt obligated to give my own probability.
Consider the numbers to have very wide bounds, or to be more meaningful expressed in words—he thinks there is a conspiracy, I don’t think there is a conspiracy, but neither of us are absolutely confident about it.
Exactly. I think there is no rational basis for answering your question.
Your friend has a distrust of corporate leaders(here I agree with him) and his theory is probably based on his feeling of disgust for their practices. So his theory has probably more of an emotional basis than a rational one. That doesn’t mean it is wrong, just there aren’t any rational reasons for believing it.