= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kevin comments on Open Thread: January 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (725)
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.