He also said:
Does critical fallibilism have anything to say about itself? If it gives itself a full bill of health, that’s no more useful than the statement “This sentence is true”, which can consistently be assigned any truth value.
But if P(Bayesianism) was low according to Bayesianism then that would be problematic. Seems he thinks of the philosophies more as biased people rather than a framework with rules which lead to unavoidable outcomes which may or may not contradict itself, like math axioms.