The problem I leap to is that this article seems to suggest that our thinking process is Bayesian. That is unlikely.
We update our beliefs based on new information, but the whole point of Bayesinaism via Bayes Theorem is updating it by a very specific amount based on evidence strength. Nobody is approximately Baysian in their thought process, and I doubt most people can even be trained to be. Statistics is a pen & paper exercise for the most part.
In my experience, which is not negligible, is the hardest part of statistics is talking people down from beliefs they have settled on because of something that looks like statistical evidence, but in fact is not.
We update our beliefs based on new information, but the whole point of Bayesinaism via Bayes Theorem is updating it by a very specific amount based on evidence strength. Nobody is approximately Baysian in their thought process, and I doubt most people can even be trained to be. Statistics is a pen & paper exercise for the most part.
In my experience, which is not negligible, is the hardest part of statistics is talking people down from beliefs they have settled on because of something that looks like statistical evidence, but in fact is not.