Glad to hear of your blog. I think one of the big problems in capturing the experimental testing of GTR Bayesianly is the simple fact that scientists did not and do not have an exhaustive set of alternative gravity theories, much less do they find it profitable to try to assign a degree of belief in a "catchall hypothesis". But they do split things up piecemeal to delineate parameters and probe them precisely along the lines of frequentist confidence intervals and significance tests. This lets them understand the phenomenon, set upper bounds to how much a viable theory can differ from GTR in given respects, and design better tests. I don't know in what way you are claiming we error statisticians are incoherent, by the way. As for Bernardo, you are correct in saying his attack (on me) was personal and vehement (I actually didn't hear the words you wrote about not being a bloody mathematician or whatever he said). He failed to answer my question, and perhaps he did not realize that the audience's snickering at his overlong harangue was not a sign that they were taking him seriously. Too bad!