Note that I was speaking of "Bayesianism" as practiced on LW, not of Bayesian statistics the academic field. I do not believe these are the same.

I think that's absurd if that's what he really means. Just because we are not daily posting new research papers employing model-averaging or non-parametric Bayesian statistics does not mean that we do not think those techniques are useful and incorporated in our epistemology or that we would consider the standard answers correct, and this argument can be applied to any area of knowledge that LWers might draw upon or consider correct. If we criticize p-values as a form of building knowledge, is that not a part of 'Bayesian epistemology' because we are drawing arguments from Jaynes or Ioannidis and did not invent them ab initio?

'Your physics can't deal with modeling subatomic interactions, and so sadly your entire epistemology is erroneous.' '??? There's a huge and extremely successful area of physics devoted to that, and I have no freaking idea what you are talking about. Are you really as ignorant and superficial as you sound like, in listing as a weakness something which is actually a major strength of the physics viewpoint?' 'Oh, but I meant physics as practiced on LessWrong! Clearly that other physics is simply not relevant. Come back when LW has built its own LHC and replicated all the standard results in the field, and then I'll admit that particle physics as practiced on LW is the same thing as particle physics the academic field, because otherwise I refuse to believe they can be the same.'