You are assuming that there is some “real” opinion you had, but have imperfect knowledge of, as if we all contain a perfect reasoner about probabilities but have only imperfect access to its conclusions. I see no reason to imagine this phantom. We gave a probability; assuming we were honest, if anything was our probability at the time, then that was it.
If we see something exceptionally surprising, we may legitimately in hindsight re-examine how we arrived at the low probability we had assigned to it. We might detect errors in our assessment back then of the evidence then available. That does not change the answer that we gave, only the probability that we now assign to the event given only the information we had then.
Discovering the right answers to a set of examination questions does not allow us to claim that we “really” knew the answers when sitting the exam.
You are assuming that there is some “real” opinion you had, but have imperfect knowledge of, as if we all contain a perfect reasoner about probabilities but have only imperfect access to its conclusions. I see no reason to imagine this phantom. We gave a probability; assuming we were honest, if anything was our probability at the time, then that was it.
If we see something exceptionally surprising, we may legitimately in hindsight re-examine how we arrived at the low probability we had assigned to it. We might detect errors in our assessment back then of the evidence then available. That does not change the answer that we gave, only the probability that we now assign to the event given only the information we had then.
Discovering the right answers to a set of examination questions does not allow us to claim that we “really” knew the answers when sitting the exam.