> The whole point of the experiment is "how does this machinery operate?" Yes, exactly! If you say "the machinery operates in way X" (where X="Bayesian statis

> The whole point of the experiment is "how does this machinery operate?" Yes, exactly! If you say "the machinery operates in way X" (where X="Bayesian statistics"), you have to actually prove that. You can't just assert it and say that people who disagree with you have bad priors. I have no doubt that you can construct a hypothetical Bayesian decision-making process that could have yielded any possible decision that any human has ever made. Just like any religious person can take any story that has ever happened and construct a story about why it is compatible with the existence of God. But unless you have a falsifiable experiment to prove that the brain actually operates this way, your explanation is an unverifiable just-so story. And in this case I don't find it at all convincing. Don't get me wrong, I understand your theoretical argument. I just think you are taking an unjustified (in my perspective) leap of faith to presume that your story reflects reality.