I haven't found anything Eliezer's written about Einstein to not be useful. Could you explain why you don't like it (and/or specify what it is you dislike), or link me to an explanation?

What has been proven wrong is the idea that explicit Bayesian thinking gives a physicist a significant rather than a marginal advantage. I don't know of any physicist who learned Bayesian thinking and suddenly became much more productive/successful/famous. You are likely to do better than without it, but you will never be as good as a noticeably smarter not-explicitly-Bayesian physicist, let alone Einstein.

Eliezer's waxing poetic about Barbour, who is a fringe scientist with intriguing ideas but without many notable achievements, is high on pathos, but not very convincing.