Can you elaborate? Do you mean “should” in the sense that it possibly ought not to do that or do you mean it might not be close enough? (In the latter case it seems to be more about specific parameters in practice rather than the concept itself?)
I mean “do I expect to see, within the relevant time frame, enough information to make Bayesian updating with a very wrong (or just very wide) initial distribution useful rather than harmful?”.
The question of whether we should expect sufficient evidence to bring us close enough to the truth still stands.
Can you elaborate? Do you mean “should” in the sense that it possibly ought not to do that or do you mean it might not be close enough? (In the latter case it seems to be more about specific parameters in practice rather than the concept itself?)
I mean “do I expect to see, within the relevant time frame, enough information to make Bayesian updating with a very wrong (or just very wide) initial distribution useful rather than harmful?”.