Yes. It&#x27;s a fairly natural outgrowth of falsification based theories, and is in fact completely necessary.<p>Consider a simple theory - bear attacks will be very low in the UK forever. Consider an alternate theory - bear attacks will be low until 2016 and then the bearpocalypse happens. Both theories have passed all attempts at falsification - they both accurately predict that bears haven&#x27;t so far eaten very few people.<p>The Bayesian approach is to assign a prior distribution to various theories of this nature. Because there are infinitely many possible priors, most exceedingly complicated (because the set of priors of complexity &lt; C is finite or at least compact), we&#x27;ll need to (eventually) assign low probabilities to high complexity ones. This gives a natural derivation of occams razor as well, at least as an asymptotic law.<p>A very readable approach to this is a post by Scott Alexander: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;09&#x2F;03&#x2F;the-guardian-vs-induction&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;09&#x2F;03&#x2F;the-guardian-vs-inducti...</a><p>Wikipedia is also pretty good: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;New_riddle_of_induction" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;New_riddle_of_induction</a>