The evaluation of hypotheses, and the ability to learn from critical reflection on experimental and theoretical tests of those hypotheses, is central to an authentic practice of physics. A large part of physics education therefore seeks to help students understand the significance of this kind of reflective practice and to develop the strategies required to accurately update their belief in the utility of various hypotheses and models. Prior work has introduced Bayesian updating activities as one potential means for cultivating such reflective practice within the context of introductory physics courses. These activities are not fixed pieces of curricular matter, but are better thought of as codified practices that are incorporated within lectures, labs, homework, and exams, and which are adaptable to a broad range of course formats. The Bayesian updating activities engage students in the use of hypothetico-deductive reasoning to test a hypothesis or model, followed by Bayesian updating at the conclusion of this test to update their subjective confidence in the hypothesis or model that was tested. Prior work has identified significant gains in pre- and post comparison of student scores on the Epistemological Beliefs Assessment for Physical Science (EBAPS) in introductory algebra-based courses. Here, we conduct a quasi-experimental study of the impact of Bayesian updating activities on student EBAPS scores in introductory calculus-based courses. Our analysis examines the impact to the overall EBAPS score, the subscores for each of the five original axes identified by the authors of the EBAPS, and the subscores for five alternative axes that were recently identified in other work [Johnson and Willoughby (2018)]. The results of our analysis show meaningful and credible gains on the overall EBAPS scores as well as for a multitude of the subscores. These gains are noteworthy due to their strength and ability to be implemented with minor alterations to course structure.