Adding numbers to your reasoning, when there is no obvious source for these probabilities (we aren’t calculating sports odds or doing climate science), is not really any different than writing a piece of fiction to make your point. It’s the same basic thing that objectivists did, and why I dismiss most “Bayesian reasoning” arguments out of hand.
Which content did you engage with that led you to the conclusion that they base their estimates with “no obvious source for these probabilities”? A link would be appreciated
