Considered as an epistemology, I don’t think you’re missing anything.
To reconstruct Popperian falsification from Bayes, see that if you observe something that some hypothesis gave probability ~0 (“impossible”), that hypothesis is almost certainly false—it’s been “falsified” by the evidence. With a large enough hypothesis space you can recover Bayes from Popper - that’s Solomonoff Induction—but you’d never want to in practice.
For more about science—as institution, culture, discipline, human activity, etc. - and ideal Bayesian rationality, see the Science and Rationality sequence. I was going to single out particular essays, but honestly the whole sequence is probably relevant!
Considered as an epistemology, I don’t think you’re missing anything.
To reconstruct Popperian falsification from Bayes, see that if you observe something that some hypothesis gave probability ~0 (“impossible”), that hypothesis is almost certainly false—it’s been “falsified” by the evidence. With a large enough hypothesis space you can recover Bayes from Popper - that’s Solomonoff Induction—but you’d never want to in practice.
For more about science—as institution, culture, discipline, human activity, etc. - and ideal Bayesian rationality, see the Science and Rationality sequence. I was going to single out particular essays, but honestly the whole sequence is probably relevant!
Thanks for the recommendation. To the sequence I go!