Most of us as normal people already engage in Bayesian logic to begin with automatically and sub consciously, and do it with greater effect as we grow more experienced. It's essentially a critical thinking algorithm used to test the likelihood of any hypothesis of it's level of potential objective truth.
As an example, we take those folks who claim there is "something up top for us to hear" in the 192kHz range and beyond music; as preposterous.
The reason this occurs so instantly is because Bayes Theorem goes something like this in a simple form:
The odds that a claim is true is equal to: the prior probability that the claim is true (multiplied by) by the odds that the evidence of the claim is true rather than not true.
In the example I just mentioned this means, because we've never seen anyone demonstrate being able to hear 44.1kHz frequency spectrum, let alone one that extends to the 192kHz range, and the nonexistent evidence on top of that being non-existent.. we can safely conclude from our observations that hearing anything in the frequency range is simply an unsubstantiated claim with zero truth.
The nice thing about Bayesian reasoning, is it leave the doors open to the formula (either prior probability portion, or the evidence portion of claim being true) to always be in flux if in case new evidence comes to light that support the claim. Which also keeps person employing the theorem in a state of always receptive to new data if it ever comes, and not always convinced that one day something may not change. This is done due to the annoying ontological arguments that question reality's existence outside of the mind (an annoying thing to deal with for some people when you come across such nonsense). So.. because we've never seen a rock actually turn into a human, we can safely conclude we are about as sure as that, as we are a rock transforming into a leaf (basically zero evidence, and zero prior odds as that has never been observed in the past).
Now you might say "this is simple math in that case, why even call it a theorem". Well if the chance of some claim being true works out eventually 50/50 for example, it's neither evidence for, or against a claim, so it can effectively be disregarded as statistically not relevant to the summation of the overall probability you're working toward.