The nature of Fuzzy's* very existence forces us to tackle an annoying question that is likely to have several reasonable answers:
What should you do if you're faced with a problem that you have to analyze and answer but where you have no relevant empirical priors?
Several different strategies have been described. Which do you prefer? Do you change strategies depending on the situation?
* the jerk
More information needed.
If faced with a new problem outside my expertise I generally either look for comparable situations and extrapolate from there or research* it. But your question seems to rule out those options.
Poke it with a stick.
My general approach is to say it's just unknown, outline likely scenarios/paths, and move on. I've always preferred to explicitly address contradicting ideas and their merits in my analyses anyway, this is really just a facet of that. That's if it's something I HAVE to analyze and answer. If it's not something I HAVE to analyze and answer, I'm content to live in a world where there are things which are just unknown. Most of it isn't going to really impact me after all, there's no reason to try and have a definitive answer/opinion.