Over here World ReviewJim Geraghty has a series of articles suggesting that the Covid virus escaped from a research lab in Wuhan, China. Today, he has a story with the following title:
Guess Where The Nuclear-Fuel-Leaking Sunken Chinese Submarine Is?
I had no problem guessing—it was Wuhan. What surprised me was the way he composed the story:
You probably remember that one, because it completely disrupted your life for a year or two and caused 27 million or so “excess deaths” worldwide. But I’ll bet you don’t remember the researchers at Wuhan University who allowed artificial intelligence to control an earth observation satellite, which led to the satellite starting to look at Indian military bases and a Japanese port used by the US Navy. Lead researcher Wang Mi boasted, “This method breaks the existing rules of job planning.” Yes, and we all know all the good things that happen when the scientific researchers in Wuhan violate existing laws. First the Andromeda Strain, then SkyNet.
What other kinds of tests are they doing over there in Wuhan these days? Summoning demons? Reaching out to say “hello” to some hostile alien empire in space? Are they just flipping through old Marvel comics, reading about the plot of the villains, and thinking, “Hey, that would make a good experiment”? All the problems in the world apparently go back to Wuhan.
That last paragraph—especially the last sentence—is the kind of thing I’d expect from a conspiracy theory skeptic, someone who wishes to poke fun at the idea that certain similarities are suspicious. I can imagine someone scoffing at the claim, “Wuhan only has about 1% of China’s population, so how likely is it that a submarine sank in the same city where Covid started?” In other words, making fun of someone for not understanding Bayesian reasoning.
To see the problem consider how the last sentence of the first paragraph quoted could be rewritten:
Yes, and we all know all the good things that happen to the wildlife dealers in Wuhan violate existing laws. First a repeat of what happened with SARS-1, then SkyNet.
Yes, I understand that Geraghty is often just being funny here. But if you treat the column as a joke, then mocks his views on Covid. So I wonder if you are serious. On some level he seems to think that digging up more dirt on Wuhan somehow leads readers to believe (if they don’t realize it) that something bad happened there in late 2019. But we already know that something bad is happening in Wuhan — a man was selling raccoon dogs at the food market.
What this example shows is exactly that strange coincidences happen all the timeand it would be foolish to make any claims based on their existence.
Here is another understanding. For the first time in 36 meetings, the Fed lowered its fed funds rate. What are the chances that politics had nothing to do with the rate cut that happened in the last meeting before the November election?
I’d say the odds are pretty good. (BTW, the previous rate cut was also in an election year.)
Here’s another interesting pattern: There has never been a time when the 3-month average unemployment rate rose above 0.5% without a recession. What is the probability that a recent increase in the unemployment rate above that threshold will not lead to a recession?
I’d say the odds are pretty good.
If you’re looking for patterns, you’ll find them. Many of them. But the world is full of strange events.
Source link