I’m a bit late to the game here, but you may be thinking of a facet of “logical induction”. Basically, logical induction is changing your hypotheses based on putting more thought into an issue, without necessarily getting more Bayesian evidence.
The simplest example is when deciding whether a mathematical proof is true. Technically, you already have a hypothesis that perfectly predicts your data—ZFC set theory—but proving the proof is highly computationally expensive using this hypothesis, so if you want a probability estimate of whether the proof is true you need some other prediction mechanism.
I’m a bit late to the game here, but you may be thinking of a facet of “logical induction”. Basically, logical induction is changing your hypotheses based on putting more thought into an issue, without necessarily getting more Bayesian evidence.
The simplest example is when deciding whether a mathematical proof is true. Technically, you already have a hypothesis that perfectly predicts your data—ZFC set theory—but proving the proof is highly computationally expensive using this hypothesis, so if you want a probability estimate of whether the proof is true you need some other prediction mechanism.
See the Consequences of Logical Induction sequence for more information.