I hate to leave a loose end dangling, so just for the sake of completeness, let’s take one more look at the Loser’s Compromise and the Unicorn Hypothesis. The point of the original post was to demonstrate that we can’t justify our beliefs on the grounds that they are merely as consistent with the facts as some other hypothesis (or explanation or world view). We did this by setting up a scenario in which the consequences we would expect from one hypothesis (that world affairs are under the clandestine control of self-effacing magical unicorns) work out to be the same as the consequences we would expect from a contrary hypothesis (that humans are in control of their own governments).
I think we did that rather well, but one commenter disagrees.
No, what we’ve achieved is another silly, impertinent scenario, if nothing else, simply because a single sample is seldom sufficient. Here, you offer two hypotheses each with a single consequence that both permit. So, of course I agree with you that “there’s no reasonable basis for concluding, even provisionally, that we’re being secretly controlled by a one-horned oligarchy.”
It’s a classic example of misdirection and dodging the issue, so I thought it would be worth a bit of attention.