> Right, and the converse is you accepting any evidence that I literally said one must update their priors, not just "accepting" it. Or maybe updating priors i

> Right, and the converse is you accepting any evidence that I literally said one must update their priors, not just "accepting" it. Or maybe updating priors is a form of "acceptance", but now you claim it isn't a problem: > You claim that we should update our priors even based on biased evidence, but I never claimed otherwise The comment you replied to just answered your question: "is there anything supporting this theory". Presumably everyone here knows basic Bayesian probability, or at least knows how to weigh supporting evidence without just blindly accepting it. Claiming otherwise seems to be rather uncharitable interpretation of the comment you replied to.