Ok, so I lied, I'll bite.

I equate "Bayesian epistemology" with a better approximation of universal inference. It's easy to generate example environments where Bayesian agents dominate Popperian agents, while the converse is never true. Popperian agents completely fail to generalize well from small noisy datasets. When you have very limited evidence, popperian reliance on hard logical falsifiability just fails.

This shouldn't even really be up for debate - do you actually believe the opposite position, or are you just trolling?