I agree in with this analysis. The cartoon is, of course, a caricature but highlights the nature of the essential problem you point out, which is that unravelin

I agree in with this analysis. The cartoon is, of course, a caricature but highlights the nature of the essential problem you point out, which is that unraveling the line of reasoning carved out by a frequentist is not a straightforward matter, even if the argument is correct. From the Bayesian perspective all arguments are deductive once you have all the information. A typical reply to this observation is that in most cases it will be clear how the steps of a calculation translate into the various assumptions needed to clarify the argument. Of course, what counts as "typical" depends on the kinds of questions one asks. If there are only a few kinds of problems in your field, then maybe you can get away with heuristic lines of reasoning, patching up problem in special cases as needed. But if you are, say, trying to write a general purpose software for statistical analysis it will not be possible to rely on inductive lines of reasoning particular to a certain field. This might partially explain the popularity of the Bayesian approach in machine learning circles.