If you are not going to do an actual data analysis, then I don't think there is much point of thinking about Bayes' rule. You could just reason as follows: "here are my prior beliefs. ooh, here is some new information. i will now adjust my believes, by trying to weigh the old and new data based on how reliable and generalizable i think the information is." If you want to call epistemology that involves attaching probabilities to beliefs, and updating those probabilities when new information is available, 'bayesian' that's fine. But, unless you have actual data, you are just subjectively weighing evidence as best you can (and not really using Bayes' rule).

The thing that can be a irritating is when people then act as if that kind of reasoning is what bayesian statisticians do, and not what frequentist statisticians do. In reality, both types of statisticians use Bayes' rule when it's appropriate. I don't think you will find any statisticians who do not consider themselves 'bayesian' who disagree with the law of total probability.

If you are actually going to analyze data and use bayesian methods, you would end up with a posterior distribution (not simply a single probability). If you simply report the probability of a belief (and not the entire posterior distribution), you're not really doing conventional bayesian analysis. So, in general, I find the conventional Less Wrong use of 'bayesian' a little odd.

I feel like this creates more misconceptions than it clears up. It's very dismissive of something that is really in the early phases of being studied.

The primary effect that reading this had on me was the change in state from [owning a cloak hadn't occurred to me] to [owning a cloak sounds awesome; i am unhappy that i hadn't thought of it on my own]

The definition of 'heritable' being underspecified (since you have to specify what population of environments you're considering) is not the same as being incoherent.

So most of what you have written makes sense but there are some major issues with some parts.

heritability (a term that has an incoherent definition)

Can you expand on what you think about the definition is incoherent? This is a pretty standard term.

the whole gene vs. environment discussion is obsolete, in light of the findings of the past decade. Everything is gene-environment interaction.

The fact that many genes interact in a complicated way with the environment is not newly discovered. It doesn't change the fact that in some contexts genes or environment can matter more or less. For example, if one has a gene that codes for some form of mental retardation, in most cases, environment can't change that. (I say in most cases because there are a few exceptions especially related to issues related to trace nutrients or to bad reactions to specific compounds). Similarly, if someone has severe lead poisoning they are going to have pretty bad problems regardless of what the genes the person has.

The first two points you made while roughly valid connect to a more general issue- yes these studies have flaws, but just because a technique has flaws doesn't mean we can't use it to learn (especially when in this context the issues you bring up are well known to the researchers).

Adoption studies are biased toward the null of no parenting effect, because adoptive parents aren't randomly selected from the population of potential parents (they often are screened to be similar to biological parents).

Twin studies I think are particularly flawed when it comes to estimating heritability (a term that has an incoherent definition). Twins have a shared pre-natal environment. In some cases, they even share a placenta.

Plus, the whole gene vs. environment discussion is obsolete, in light of the findings of the past decade. Everything is gene-environment interaction.

wait, this isn't well done satire?

This might or might not be so, however, if you suddenly saw strong evidence to the contrary, would you hold the genetically afflicted race in disgust and contempt, treating it as having less moral worth than the more fortunate races? Or would you try to help its members eliminate the unwanted cultural/behavioral differences (without necessarily harming yourself in any way)?

It implies that people who reject their claims are not being real. I want to be a realist, but I certainly have seen no evidence that any particular race is more likely to commit unscrupulous acts if you control for environment (if that was even possible). It's a propaganda term, like '[my cause] realist.'

If "realism" is just an applause light, then why do people (including me) refer to themselves (non-ironically) as anti-realists (like moral anti-realists or scientific anti-realists)?

Would you please elaborate?