Eliezer,
I think you are too harsh with the Science-goggles.
I was taught that, when first proposed, the Copernican theory did not explain the then available data any better than the Ptolemaic system.
It’s main attraction (to Science-goggles-wearing types, though not to Bible-goggles-wearing ones) was simplicity: it just had to be true!
I don’t know if Copernicus ever invoked Ockham’s name in defense of its theory, but the latter triumphed much before Rev. Bayes’s (or Solomonoff’s) birth.
So maybe “simplicity”—like many other concepts—has always been one element of the Science-goggles, even before a formal mathematical definition of it was available.
Nice job, but the mention of Aumann’s theorem looks a bit like a sleight of hand: did the poor fellow ever learn that the theorem requires the assumption of common priors?