My question is premised on this one, which I'm trying to do in a Bayesian style. I'm a Bayes noob.
In a recent poll of 755 randomly selected adults, 587 said X. Test the claim that 75% of adults think X.
I'm starting out just by working out a likelihood function (before testing any claims; I don't want to announce a prior just yet). So I did the following in Mathematica:
l[ev_] := Function[{param},
Probability[var == ev,
Distributed[var, BinomialDistribution[755, param]]]
The idea being that l[evidence] is the likelihood function under that evidence, where param is the underlying probability of the binomial distribution.
I then calculated the integral of l[587] over all param between $0$ and $1$, and was a little surprised to get an integral of $0.00132$. According to my previous understanding, that means no hypothesis in my hypothesis space (i.e. no probability for the binomial distribution) makes the outcome very likely.
If I treat this function l[587] as a Bayesian update from the uniform prior (i.e. I normalise, by dividing through by that integral), I get a function which peaks at the value param == 0.777 with value 26.3756; a lot of the probability mass is now concentrated around that value of the parameter, which is basically what I expected. But I didn't want to treat any priors at this point, and normalising is effectively forcing the likelihood function to become a PMF (which it shouldn't be, because that implies a prior has been picked).
What is the One True Way(TM) of interpreting my unexpectedly-small likelihood function? Why is it so small? Does it matter?