@stevenemassey @nizzaneela @arguablywrong @slatestarcodex My simulations were not conditional on an ascertained case at any specific date. I can try adding that feature and see how it changes.
@stevenemassey @nizzaneela @arguablywrong @slatestarcodex But I'm not sure that would be persuasive because the lab leak theories make such a wide variety of ascertainment bias claims that it wouldn't satisfy everyone's hypothetical version of the lab leak pandemic.
@tgof137 @stevenemassey @nizzaneela @slatestarcodex Presenting digitally altered data as if it were unaltered is - obviously - a problem independent of its effects on the conclusion of your argument.
@arguablywrong @stevenemassey @nizzaneela @slatestarcodex Feel free to ask me about any other figures or graphs from my debate slides if you see any other issues. Maybe I can save you some time sleuthing. (I'm traveling today, though, haven't read your full critique)
@tgof137 @arguablywrong @stevenemassey @nizzaneela @slatestarcodex Altering images without proper attribution to suit one's fraudulent narrative is expected from a psycho who has a history of lying.
@abhishek_s_1 @arguablywrong @stevenemassey @nizzaneela @slatestarcodex Don't sugarcoat it, tell me how you really feel.
@tgof137 @abhishek_s_1 @arguablywrong @stevenemassey @nizzaneela @slatestarcodex I think he’s saying that you’re a fraudy sort of bloke. I got that impression too
@AndrewButchart1 @abhishek_s_1 @arguablywrong @stevenemassey @nizzaneela @slatestarcodex I'm kind of past the point of caring what some critics think. When I presented Pekar 2022 they said that paper was fraudulent and the model too complex. When I showed you can get the same start date from an exponential model, they said the model was too simple.
@AndrewButchart1 @abhishek_s_1 @arguablywrong @stevenemassey @nizzaneela @slatestarcodex Their point is never to compare the models to reality or check for accuracy, it's to have some reason to complain.
@AndrewButchart1 @abhishek_s_1 @arguablywrong @stevenemassey @nizzaneela @slatestarcodex So Scott wrote a blog post endorsing zoonosis, lab leak supporters wrote 1,000 comments worth of cope. He responded to many of them and continued to support zoonosis. Now they'll write 1,000 more comments worth of cope.
@tgof137 @AndrewButchart1 @abhishek_s_1 @stevenemassey @nizzaneela @slatestarcodex I don’t have a strong opinion on the subject, haven’t watched the video, and have done only a cursory reading of Scott’s blog posts. But when that hour or so of time finds serious mathematical errors and fraudulent alteration of data, then clearly you are not a reliable source.
@tgof137 @AndrewButchart1 @abhishek_s_1 @stevenemassey @nizzaneela @slatestarcodex There may be very good arguments inside your presentations that are worth examining, but I’m not going to spend hundreds of hours digging them out.
@arguablywrong @AndrewButchart1 @abhishek_s_1 @stevenemassey @nizzaneela @slatestarcodex Feel free to fact check both sides of the debate, I'm confident my claims are consistently far more accurate. Both judges and Scott already went through that process and agreed.
@arguablywrong @tgof137 @AndrewButchart1 @abhishek_s_1 @stevenemassey @nizzaneela @slatestarcodex > "...fraudulent alteration of data..." Can you share your mind-probing methodology? Do you use something like a crystal ball or do you have mad ESP skillz or is it something else?