Until about a decade ago, it could be really hard to get papers accepted in my scientific field (geosciences, particularly geology) that used Bayesian methods because senior faculty and journal editors deemed them subjective and less rigorous than frequentist ‘letter tests’. This didn’t really change until more powerful computers and mathy scripting languages allowed the younger scientists to generate undeniable better results, particularly for very poorly conditioned inverse and parameter estimation problems. The wave of pro-Bayesian propaganda has been promulgated in no small part by the younger scientists who have been fighting for acceptance for a long time, but the resistance fought through editorial and grant proposal rejection letters, not blog posts, more powerful but less noisy. It’s also still unlikely to find Bayes stats classes in most geoscience departments, so practitioners are largely self-taught outside of Michigan, Caltech etc.
I imagine it’s been similar in many branches of science.