You are right. I read it too long ago to remember enough details to revise the cached thought about the section's content.

It's wrong both formally, and for humans, since hypotheses can both have a large enough mass to pay rent, and be "fractal" enough to select nontrivial subsets from tiny improbable events.

If you have a random number generator that selects a random number of 100 digits, but it's known to select odd numbers 100 times as often as even ones, then when you see a specific odd number, it's an incredibly improbable event for that specific number to appear, and you have an explanation for why it's odd.

The only valid message in that section was that the hindsight bias can distort ability to explain unlikely events.