That sounds like a theorist dodging the issue. The use of Bayesian statistical methods in papers is reasonably normal, although still the minority position. T

That sounds like a theorist dodging the issue. The use of Bayesian statistical methods in papers is reasonably normal, although still the minority position. The use of Bayesian falsification or confirmation theory as a philosophy of science is increasingly common. The argument that we should switch to Bayesianism in situations where we cannot sample from the likelihood function (ie: perform an experiment which yields evidence distinguishing one hypothesis from another) is a special kind of bullshit where the attempt at "science" is being packed into prior formation to favor someone's pet theory.