Ironically the article that the example is from offers quite a nice rebuttal: > None of these examples are meant to shoot down Bayes. Indeed, if posterior infe

Ironically the article that the example is from offers quite a nice rebuttal: > None of these examples are meant to shoot down Bayes. Indeed, if posterior inferences don’t make sense, that’s another way of saying that we have external (prior) information that was not included in the model. (“Doesn’t make sense” implies some source of knowledge about which claims make sense and which don’t.) When things don’t make sense, it’s time to improve the model. Bayes is cool with that.