Bayesian inference only functions within known solution-space. Spotting things outside of known solution space, while rare, is essential for the progression of science – and can't be modelled simply as Bayesian inference.
Did anyone point out that the 3DS has a camera title?
Communication transfers ideas from one person to another. If technically correct communication transfers false ideas, it is deception. Accurate communication transfers correct ideas with high fidelity, which isn't necessarily equivalent to technically correct communication.
I can confirm that that's an expression in English.
but it's hard to hear the story and imagine that that grandpa is an old timey european, talking about good wolves.
That is what I thought. Not "old timey" per se, but modern grandparent age. The story feels five to ten years old, to me.
or so as not to confuse the public with changed numbers
If you're withholding knowledge to avoid confusing people, chances are that your withholding is the primary source of confusion. Just say "new estimates" or "revised estimates" – job done.
What could survive is a propensity to become the sort of person to sacrifice yourself to protect your family. given that no other family member has done so. Or, a propensity to sacrifice yourself that would normally kick in after you've had kids. But actually sacrificing yourself before you pass on your genes is a textbook example of "selected against".
I think it's just reachability. Arbital is Far Away, and it's plausible that not everyone even knows it exists.
A second, detailed reading might make it seem like this comment's has an error. However, the reasoning is sound; "you said the coin was heads" doesn't distinguish very well between "the coin was heads" and "the coin was tails but you lied about the bet", so doesn't provide much evidence.
Likewise, the dismissing of hearsay appears to be an error, but remember that humans have finite computational power. If you take into account (at least) the hypothesis that somebody's trying to deceive you about reality, you effectively end up dismissing the evidence anyway – but then you need to keep track of an extra hypothesis for the rest of your life to avoid scatterings of hearsay consistently nudging up your probability estimate when that's not really founded. (This is assuming that it's cheap to manufacture hearsay; expensive-to-manufacture hearsay shouldn't be dismissed so lightly.)
I had to think about this for quite a while before I could refute it. Well done.