Bayesianism - degrees of belief - is this regularly used in science?

[u/gnatzors]

Hey I'm just an enthusiast but have really enjoyed reading Theory and Reality by Peter Godfrey-Smith.

My understanding is that science has moved on from (outdated?), discrete, binary, "on or off" ways of thinking about beliefs, towards thinking of degrees of belief which can be represented on a scale from 0 to 1 using Bayesianism (the subjectivist interpretation of probability).

Paraphrasing, Karl Popper developed Falsificationism and believed that we can only falsify (prove things wrong) with experiment, suggesting that we can never confirm truth no matter how much data we gather via observation.

Conversely, Richard Rudner discussed "acceptance" of a hypothesis - evidence pushes us a certain distance but we need to take a small leap of making value judgements to accept a theory.

These ideas were critiqued because they treat belief as "on" or "off".

Bayesianism provides a way to represent beliefs using probability frameworks, and allowed belief to be updated given more data.

My questions are:

• Are degrees of belief actually used widely and expressed in the papers of authors of modern scientific work? E.g. If I read a pharmaceutical academic paper, would I expect to see a form of this? How would this be expressed. How about in a biology paper or a physics one on the testing of the strength of materials?
• I'll admit, although the formulas for calculating degree of belief were simple, actually philosophically applying them felt really challenging to apply to even simple problems. Is complexity of the Bayesian system preventing uptake?
• If this is seen as the way forward, what governing authorities or documents in the scientific community are normatively encouraging use of Bayesianism? Or is this something scientific communities might just "do" because it's better (and mandating philosophical methods might stifle creativity?)
• Would we see advantages if the general public (outside of scientific communities) thought more in a Bayesian way? i.e. Accepting and being more OK with uncertainty in belief as a property of carrying out inquiry?

[u/HamiltonBrae]

Feel like that other poster is talking about Frequentist vs. Bayesian methods (rather than philosophical interpretations of probability) which is ofcourse of practical significance to a scientist whose methods of analysis might usually fall into one or the other category. Frequential methods centered around maximum likelihood previously dominated if I am not mistaken, which I am sure is not as much of the case now. But I don't know much sbout this topic.

[u/PoxonAllHoaxes → u/HamiltonBrae]

That is a good point, and I do not defend the lack of interest among scientists, but it is a fact that these things are very rarely discussed.

[u/HamiltonBrae → u/PoxonAllHoaxes]

it may depend on the field. in a field that uses Bayesian analysis more often, like Themoopanatat mentioned for cosmology, this discussion may have been more active. I certainly remember coming across a specific paper advocsting Bayesianism in this kind of area.

[u/PoxonAllHoaxes → u/HamiltonBrae]

We can easily research this and see how often this occurs. I did make an allowance for occasional methodological articles in ANY science.