  Experiments are once again under way at the LHC. This time around, however,
the mood in the high-energy physics community is pessimistic. There is a
growing suspicion that naturalness arguments that predict new physics near the
weak scale are faulty and that prospects for a new discovery are limited. We
argue that such doubts originate from a misunderstanding of the foundations of
naturalness arguments. In spite of the first run at the LHC, which aggravated
the little-hierarchy problem, there is no cause for doubting naturalness or
natural theories. Naturalness is grounded in Bayesian probability logic - it is
not a scientific theory and it makes no sense to claim that it could be
falsified or that it is under pressure from experimental data. We should remain
optimistic about discovery prospects; natural theories, such as supersymmetry,
generally predict new physics close to the weak scale. Furthermore, from a
Bayesian perspective, we briefly discuss 't Hooft's technical naturalness and a
contentious claim that the little-hierarchy problem hints that the Standard
Model is a fundamental theory.
