Thanks for replying!
First, as for “earning readers’ trust” — not sure what that means, exactly. If you disagree with an argument and think it is mistaken, how is that a violation of trust? Did I lie, deceive, misrepresent?
Second: I actually don’t really think your example is all that “ridiculous” as a thought experiment. Of course, if you have justified priors to plug into your sequence of outcomes, all the better! But you are always more rational by trying to probabilistically assess a problem rather than just dealing with it by means of intuition.
On a minor note: Your example is a bit flawed, I believe. For example, failing to remember how to get to work does not necessarily relate to the probability of being run over by a car. Also, in your example, you have omitted the crucial part — tha actual final event of being run over by a car!
But I think I understand your overall point; my “philosophical” argument about probabilism vs. determinism in the context of the big data story can be misunderstood as an empirical analysis.