So, being able to observe that one behaviour causes the desired outcome more often than another behaviour counts as reasoning using Bayes Theorem? On this level of vagueness we could proclaim children natural frequentists, or Popperian falsificationists, or whatever else with equal ease.

The children adjusted their hypotheses appropriately when they saw the statistical data

Using such words to describe small children trying to light up a toy makes me suspect that this post is a parody.