Making the claim that you know the proportion of conspiracies that get reported implies you know the number of conspiracies not reported.

Im not aware of any way you could know that or the relative proportion of each.

Where do you get your certainty here?

I have no certainty, that's the point! The evidence for natural evolution is pretty reasonable (it matches every other pandemic ever -- these are hardly unknown!), the evidence for lab genesis is at best circumstantial and frankly pretty heavily spun by everyone dealing in it.

You want the fact that I can't prove you wrong to be evidence that you're right, and that's not how logic works.

I think you misunderstood. Your claim is:

"The overwhelming majority of conspiracies likes this, especially ones in fundamentally civilian organizations like science labs, don't survive a year if that."

How do you know that the overwhelming majority of conspiracies don't survive a year if that? It's like sampling sick people and concluding that all people are sick. Without an estimate of the number of conspiracies that actually are kept hidden (which to me seems nearly impossible), how could you possibly know the proportion as you claimed?

This seems like a base rate fallacy to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy

It's an intuition based on a lifetime of watching dumb bureaucrats try to hide stuff and failing. But your logic is symmetric: where are all the successfully hidden conspiracies then? Obviously your response will be "we don't know by definition because they're hidden", which sorta makes your point non-falsifiable, doesn't it?

I'll put my money on bureaucrats being dumb over globalist nation state super autocracy every day.

His point would be non-falsifiable if he claimed to the opposite of your claim. He didn't. What he claims is the logic flaw of yours and argues deductively.

And I repeat, that logic is specious because it works both ways. The same unfounded assertion (that there are conspiracies we can't know about) wrecks the math "deductively" in both directions.

I don't think it's very much a stretch to believe that pervasive observations of bureaucracies leaking and making mistakes serves as evidence that genuinely true Hidden Conspiracies are vanishingly rare. But you do you.

> And I repeat, that logic is specious because it works both ways. The same unfounded assertion (that there are conspiracies we can't know about) wrecks the math "deductively" in both directions.

You're still missing the point: GGGP didn't argue in any “direction” at all; all they said was you can't know for sure what you claim.

> I don't think it's very much a stretch to believe that pervasive observations of bureaucracies leaking and making mistakes serves as evidence that genuinely true Hidden Conspiracies are vanishingly rare.

Sure. But don't then put your “hopefully not a stretch” guess in such cocksure terms.

> But you do you.

And you, obviously, you.