Quick(ish) take: The lab leak hypothesis versus the lab leak conspiracy theory

 A simple observation.  What is the origin of COVID-19?  I do not know.  In the absence of any evidence, my default is to place a high "Bayesian prior" probability on the claim that any given virus (or, in principle, bacterium) evolved naturally.  Could any given infectious disease have originated in a lab?  In principle, I cannot put a probability of zero on that claim, but the null hypothesis, or Bayesian prior depending on your framework, must always be that nightmare petrie dish, evolution.  If you claim that any critter, large, small or microscopic, originated in a lab, the burden is on you, and since you are posing what is fundamentally a conspiracy theory, the evidence required for me to update my Bayesian prior is significant.  That doesn't mean such claims should not be investigated, but me and my shadow priors, we stick together.

There have, of course, been those overly willing to reject the null in this case, for a variety of reasons.  Trumpists have been anxious to say, hey, look at China instead of Donald Trump's policy failures.  Conspiracy theorists love to conspiracy-theorize.  Lefty pokers have been pokin' at the lefties.

Yet the scientific position must be evolution as the null.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Some cliches are wise, and this one applies.  A conspiracy theory is always an extraordinary claim.

Evidence is emerging that COVID may have come from a lab.  Strong enough that a Bayesian should update his priors.  Declare war on China?  No, but update his priors.  I do not know COVID's origins.  That's an update from "stop bothering me with this shit."  If we want to shift from Bayesian theory to hypothesis testing, though, we are a long way from rejecting the null.  Yeah, I've been going back and forth between Bayesianism and classical, but what're you gonna do about it?  Huh?!

Anyway, what does this mean for those who were on board with the lab notion way-back-when?  Do they get to gloat?

No.

If you pick stocks by consulting a "psychic," you might get lucky and outperform the market on occasion, for a short period of time.  However, would that mean you could gloat about your stock-picking strategy or the gifts of your "psychic" financial advisor?

I don't have to answer that, do I?

Reasoning matters.  Those who formed the wrong prior-- the unscientific prior-- or updated their priors based on ideology or convenience rather than data are on as shaky ground gloating now as the "investor" whose decisions are guided by Madame Hooey.