But do you think he actually said it?

I don't think he said it clearly, and I don't think he said anything else clearly. Believe it or not, what I am doing is charitable interpretation...I am trying to make sense of what he said. If he thinks Bayes is systematically better than science, that would imply "Bayes is better than science, so replace science with Bayes", because that makes more sense than "Bayes is better than science, so don't replace Science with Bayes". So I think that is what he is probably saying.

he failure to distinguish between “this person said a thing” and “this person said something that implies a thing”,

Maybe it's Sally Anne fallacy, maybe its charitable interperetation. One should only use charitable interpretation where the meaning is unclear. Sally-Anne is only a fallacy where the meaning is clear.

If you think you know what he meant, stand by it and defend your interpretation. If you don’t think you know what he meant, admit that outright.

I am engaging in probablistic reasoning.

Okay, so another person misinterpreted him in a similar way.

Why should I make any attempt to provide evidence, when you are going to reject it out of hand.

He cannot explicitly reject every possible mistake someone might make while reading his essays.

No, but he could do a lot better. (An elephant-in-the-room issue here is that even though he is still alive, no-one expects him to pop up and say something that actually clarifies the issue).

So first off I don’t think I know what you mean by “systematically”.

It's about the most basic principle of epistemology, and one which the rationalsphere accepts: lucky guesses stopped clocks are not knowledge, even when they are right, because they are not reliable and systematic.

I think, a meaningless question without specifying what it’s supposed to be better at.

Obviously, that would be the stuff that science is already doing, since EY has argued, at immense length, that it gets quantum mechanics right,.

Eliezer doesn’t use the word. It seems clear, at least, that he’s dubious “teach more Bayes to Robert Aumann” would cause Robert Aumann to have more correct beliefs. So, maybe Eliezer doesn’t even think Bayes is systematically better in the sense that you mean?

If there is some objective factor about a person that makes them incapable of understanding Bayes , then a Bayesian should surely identify it. But where else has EY ever so much as hinted that some people are un-Bayesian?

Dunno if you think this either, also probably not super relevant.

Why do I have to tell you what I think in order for you to tell me what you think?

Here's the exchange:

Me: Do you think LessWrong-at-large currently thinks “individuals should be willing to trust in Bayes over science”?

You: Dunno if you think this either, also probably not super relevant.