Well, it is not a “Bayesian way” to take a random controversial statement and say “the priors are 50% it’s true, and 50% it’s false”.
(That would be true only if you had zero knowledge about… anything related to the statement. Or if the knowledge would be so precisely balanced the sum of the evidence would be exactly zero.)
But the factual wrongness is only a partial answer. The other part is more difficult to articulate, but it’s something like… if someone uses “your keywords” to argue a complete nonsense, that kinda implies that you are expected to be so stupid that you would accept the nonsense as long as it is accompanied with the proper keywords… which is quite offensive.
Well, it is not a “Bayesian way” to take a random controversial statement and say “the priors are 50% it’s true, and 50% it’s false”.
(That would be true only if you had zero knowledge about… anything related to the statement. Or if the knowledge would be so precisely balanced the sum of the evidence would be exactly zero.)
But the factual wrongness is only a partial answer. The other part is more difficult to articulate, but it’s something like… if someone uses “your keywords” to argue a complete nonsense, that kinda implies that you are expected to be so stupid that you would accept the nonsense as long as it is accompanied with the proper keywords… which is quite offensive.