So now you are moving the goal posts.
Not to those who comprehend what they read. I was pretty clear in my post what I meant. I'm not responsible for your inability to comprehend what it meant. You specifically said that we don't know if it has worked. that means the calculation is performed with a 0 in the known successes column and thus, we can conclude the likely probability of success is therefore 0.
You changed your argument from no known successes to possibly being able to cite one single success. That doesn't change the fact that you are not basing your fallacious argument on probability. It just means you are
really bad at calculating probabilities.
There either is a chance of success or there isn't.
If there are no known instances of success and numerous known instances of failure, the only probability of success that can be calculated is zero probability.
If there are very very few known instances of success and a plethora of known instances of failure, the probability of success that can be calculated will be
about zero.
That means, if one or two instances can actually
be found,t the probability of success for pissing and moaning is
about the same, but not quite the same, as the probability of success for taking a **** on a wildebeest's vagina.
And some people believe that there are times when even the slightest bit of a chance is better than no chance.
And if people use that "logic" to employ methods that have only the slightest chance of success instead of employing ones that have a much,
much greater chance of success, then they are exceptionally stupid. It's much smarter to take one of the plethora of approach that has a significantly greater chance of success.