It did take a while for someone to point out the chief problem, I see. But Brian started his grandparent comment by disputing a definition. Moreover, he did so while arguing for a position that (he tells us) rejects essences and de-emphasizes "what is" questions. Brian goes on to "lol" at a claim he gives no obvious sign of understanding.

I'm really writing this to ask if you've already answered the question at the end of this comment, or shown some other advantage Popper has over Bayes, in a way that I wouldn't have seen when I scanned your posts.