Well, I think that by any reasonable standards of "winning", Richard Dawkins beats just about everyone here, whether he agrees sufficiently with local tropes or not. So it's not clear I'm qualified to answer.
Well, I think that by any reasonable standards of "winning", Richard Dawkins beats just about everyone here, whether he agrees sufficiently with local tropes or not.
I agree. And that also means that whether he mentions Bayesian epistemology or not is not the best question you can ask. A better question would be, how could he have improved his output, or improve his future output, by mentioning or adopting it? The same could be asked about the Sequences.
...it's not clear I'm qualified to answer.
I think that a strong SI advocate would have ...
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/neil-degrasse-tyson-atheist-or-agnostic
Apparently Dawkins and Tyson give a non-zero probability to "God". Which is pretty much what is expected of a rational person. And of course it will be used by theists to say "They aren't really sure!"