> They are practically obsessed with Bayesian reasoning and probability of truth.
Which is still math, not the real world. Bayesian reasoning is useful, but it's not a drop-in replacement for your brain. "Rationalists" often seem to talk as though they think it is--just follow this recipe and your thinking will automatically give the right answer. And anyone who tries to talk about limitations of this is obviously a crackpot.
> Is your impression otherwise?
Not with respect to obsession with Bayesian reasoning, no. But I seem to have a different take on that than you do. See above.
Im genuinely curious how you are differentiating "using your brain". What does that look like for the real world?