That sounds like a theorist dodging the issue.<p>The use of Bayesian statistical methods in papers is reasonably normal, although still the minority position.<p>The use of Bayesian falsification or confirmation theory as a philosophy of science is increasingly common.<p>The argument that we should <i>switch</i> to Bayesianism <i>in situations where we cannot sample from the likelihood function</i> (ie: perform an experiment which yields evidence distinguishing one hypothesis from another) is a special kind of bullshit where the attempt at &quot;science&quot; is being packed into prior formation to favor someone&#x27;s pet theory.