I'm torn on the value of Bayesianism in the philosophy-of-science context.
I won't discuss my own conflicted position, but I will say that Michael Strevens covers the field pretty well in this article:
There are, on Strevens' telling, three big points:
1) that a scientist's "epistemic attitude to any scientifically significant proposition is, or ought to be, exhausted by the subjective probability the scientist assigns to the proposition;"
2) that this subjective probability conforms to the standard mathematics of probability; and
3) that Bayes' conditionalization rule is an instruction as to how one ought to update one' subjective probabilities as new evidence arises.
And, by the way, yes the "r" does appear where I've put it in Strevens' name. That isn't a typo.