> The distribution of these probabilities is substantially lower than 273. There's no evidence for this, you can't just point to "there's a lot of numbers and

> The distribution of these probabilities is substantially lower than 273. There's no evidence for this, you can't just point to "there's a lot of numbers and we only saw 273 of them" to justify it. The distribution seems exactly what we're trying to determine; to me it sounds like a good example of when Bayesianism breaks down.