Surely you’d assign at least a 10^-5 chance that it’s on the mark? More confidence than this would seem to indicate overconfidence bias, after all, plenty of smart people believe in model A and it can’t be that likely that they’re all wrong.
It seems that if you accept this, you really ought to go accept Pascal’s Wager as well, since a lot of smart people believe in God.
It seems like an extraordinary leap to accept that the original numbers are within 5 orders of magnitude, unless you’ve actually been presented with strong evidence. Humans naturally suck at estimating these sorts of things absent evidence (see again, mass belief in One True God), so there’s no a-priori reason to suspect it’s even within 10^5.
It seems that if you accept this, you really ought to go accept Pascal’s Wager as well, since a lot of smart people believe in God.
It seems like an extraordinary leap to accept that the original numbers are within 5 orders of magnitude, unless you’ve actually been presented with strong evidence. Humans naturally suck at estimating these sorts of things absent evidence (see again, mass belief in One True God), so there’s no a-priori reason to suspect it’s even within 10^5.