May be missing some subtlety, but at a quick read I would respond to this as: - The author has not deeply understood the subjective interpretation of probabili

May be missing some subtlety, but at a quick read I would respond to this as: - The author has not deeply understood the subjective interpretation of probability, as widely used by bayesians, and applicable to this sort of reasoning - the author, and the sources the author quotes based on a quick read, seem unfamiliar with quanifying uncertainties not just as point estimates, but instead by using a probability distribution, which you can use to easily tell the difference between a mean probability of .5 based on say 5 heads and 5 tails, vs one based on 500 heads and 500 tails. The point that it's often difficult to tell whether a particular probability should be 0.0001 or 0.00001 is a fair one. But overall I don't take much reassurance from this article.