Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. P(H | E) > P(H) if and only if P(H | ~E) < P(H). Absence of evidence may be very weak evidence of absence, but it is evidence nonetheless. (However, you may not be entitled to a particular kind of evidence.)
You cannot expect[2] that future evidence will sway you in a particular direction. “For every expectation of evidence, there is an equal and opposite expectation of counterevidence.”
Then I may not hold my current attitude. But I don’t see reason to believe those premises.
Maybe it’s because I’m not bayesian enough:
If I accepted that:
Then I may not hold my current attitude. But I don’t see reason to believe those premises.