The methodological error is this: social psychological theories are descriptive, while Bayesian probability is prescriptive, it’s an epistemic optimum. You don’t get to say “he reduction of implausibility to cognitive dissonance bears significant philosophical weight. It denies both Bayesian and coherentist theories of knowledge”, because one is about how things are, the other about how things should be.
The methodological error is this: social psychological theories are descriptive, while Bayesian probability is prescriptive, it’s an epistemic optimum.
You don’t get to say “he reduction of implausibility to cognitive dissonance bears significant philosophical weight. It denies both Bayesian and coherentist theories of knowledge”, because one is about how things are, the other about how things should be.