It is not quite the case that every person decides for themselves how much evidence is necessary to confirm a hypothesis within the institution of science; what Berlinski is debating is the amount of evidence necessary for proof within that institution, which is an entirely legitimate philosophical argument, and one without which science would not exist.

I think his arguments have long passed absurdity in any practical sense, but the dismiss it as 'all philosophy' ignores the fact that all scientific proof is an outgrowth of philosophy.