Jaynes even uses the example of meteorites (aka thunderstones) to show that this line of reasoning, while valid by the laws of probability, can lead educated people to believe things that are not true.

The natural philosophers who knew something about gravity had a much higher prior probability for the unreliability of farmers' reports of natural phenomena than they did for rocks falling from the sky, so every report served to reinforce the hypothesis that farmers don't know what they are talking about. It took reports from people who were considered reliable in order for the meteorite hypothesis to be accepted.

How reliable a reporter would you need to call science in general into question?