This is one of those things where it's impossible to prove one approach better or worse than the other. But history has shown (starting with merchant ship insurance in the 1700s going up to Tetlock's superforecaster research more recently) that starting from general base rates gives, on average, more realistic odds than starting from specifics.
You see this all the time in sports betting, too. People overcorrect from the base rate when receiving news. People love a narrative that makes sense to them, but statistically it rarely holds up against statistical reasoning with a very small set of variables. (For more examples, see Meehl's research around clinical vs actuarial judgment.)
Yes, you're correct that a hypothesis is one of those narratives, but if you're operating at that level of scientific abstraction you can ignore my comment. Most people don't, and just roll with the story and forget about the probabilities.
You see this all the time in sports betting, too. People overcorrect from the base rate when receiving news. People love a narrative that makes sense to them, but statistically it rarely holds up against statistical reasoning with a very small set of variables. (For more examples, see Meehl's research around clinical vs actuarial judgment.)
Yes, you're correct that a hypothesis is one of those narratives, but if you're operating at that level of scientific abstraction you can ignore my comment. Most people don't, and just roll with the story and forget about the probabilities.