The scientific method as a special case of Bayes theorem and whether the not directly experimental aspects can be mapped on some part of Bayesian reasoning. Now that you pointed it out I can see that you were only referring to the narrow sub-point in the great-gandparent and not the wider context, but it looked to me like you were also arguing that since theories don't have (frequentlialist) probabilities Popperian reasoning about them couldn't map to probabilistically framed Bayesian reasoning. Looking at the votes it seems I wasn't alone in that (mis-)reading.