Gregory's Server@mcc you do see people Online deploying a sort of weak pascal's mugging to justify nonsense, like "well sure, the odds that it's a REAL perpetual motion machine are very low, but the benefits would be nearly unlimited so we should hear him out."
(doesn't Bayesian reasoning save you from the mugging though? your prior on something like "the mugger will pay me X dollars" can just be much smaller than 1/X for large Xs, so you laugh the mugger off)
@roywig yes, that's an argument I saw John Baez put forth (that you can resolve the paradox without leaving the Bayesian regime by concluding the probability a person will pay you $N goes down rapidly the higher N is)
However, I am not sure that this resolves my personal, separate criticism of Bayesian reasoning (that it is Calvinball, and highly sensitive to extra-Bayesian reasoning performed before setting up the problem)