I haven’t found anything Eliezer’s written about Einstein to not be useful. Could you explain why you don’t like it (and/or specify what it is you dislike), or link me to an explanation?
What has been proven wrong is the idea that explicit Bayesian thinking gives a physicist a significant rather than a marginal advantage. I don’t know of any physicist who learned Bayesian thinking and suddenly became much more productive/successful/famous. You are likely to do better than without it, but you will never be as good as a noticeably smarter not-explicitly-Bayesian physicist, let alone Einstein.
Eliezer’s waxing poetic about Barbour, who is a fringe scientist with intriguing ideas but without many notable achievements, is high on pathos, but not very convincing.
What has been proven wrong is the idea that explicit Bayesian thinking gives a physicist a significant rather than a marginal advantage. I don’t know of any physicist who learned Bayesian thinking and suddenly became much more productive/successful/famous. You are likely to do better than without it, but you will never be as good as a noticeably smarter not-explicitly-Bayesian physicist, let alone Einstein.
Eliezer’s waxing poetic about Barbour, who is a fringe scientist with intriguing ideas but without many notable achievements, is high on pathos, but not very convincing.