In response to the cartwheel part—here’s a possible explanation. It’s from a pretty clearly biased source, but it does sound reasonable. http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/03/amanda-knox-finally-admits.html
At the very least I doubt she was leaping around exuberantly and spontaenously.
Is this an arithmetic mean or a geometric mean?
Which is the correct mean to use for averaging probabilities, anyway?
I believe the idea here is that because particle A and B are indistinguishable, the probability assigned to the case where particle A is “before” B can be equivalently assigned to the opposite case.
In the same manner that a train schedule with cities across the top and side needs only one entry per cityA / cityB pairing.
You claim there are significant issues with the climate science process, but admit there are no journal articles criticizing the process. If you know enough to find faults with their science, why haven’t you yourself written an article on the matter?
Do you think there is something inherent in the culture of climatology science that introduces these anti-Bayesian biases? Why is climate science subject to this when other sciences are not?
Are you saying the field is systemically politically driven from the top down?