Posted: Feb 03, 2012 10:02 am
proudfootz wrote:I'm happy to leave anyone still reading this to decide who understands the paper and who doesn't.
Me, too!
Of course, you could deal with the two outstanding criticisms I have and demonstrate either your understanding by answering them or my lack of understanding by showing why they don't apply.
As another reminder, they are:
(a) The examples in Carrier's paper use "Bayesian epistemology" only to establish statements that are already blindingly obvious. There's nothing to make you think he tell us something we don't already know.
(b) He's as liberal with the underived and subjective probability statements as the people he purports to criticise for using them.