A Bayesian might argue that the basic assumptions that go into Bayesian epistemology (The assumptions for Cox’s theorem + some assumptions that yield prior distributions) have the same status as the rules of logic—we conjecture that they’re true and they stand up to criticism, ye we don’t think we’ve proven these assumptions.
I don’t think I have heard that argued. The problem of the reference machine in Occam’s razor leads to a million slightly-different variations. That seems much more dubious than deduction does.
I don’t think I have heard that argued. The problem of the reference machine in Occam’s razor leads to a million slightly-different variations. That seems much more dubious than deduction does.