How is this a constructive comment? You’re just stating your position again. We all already know your position. I can just as easily say:
Bayesians should not answer 1⁄3. Nobody should answer 1/3: that’s the wrong answer.
If your interpretation of the word “credence” leads you to answer 1⁄3, you are fighting with the rest of the community over the definition of the concept of subjective probability.
If the entire scientific establishment is using subjective probability in a different way, by all means, show us! But don’t keep asserting it like it has been established. That isn’t productive.
The point of the comment was to express disapproval of the idea that scientists had multiple different conceptions of subjective probability—and that the Bayesian approach gave a different answer to other ones—and to highlight exactly where I differed from garethrees—mostly for his benefit.
How is this a constructive comment? You’re just stating your position again. We all already know your position. I can just as easily say:
If the entire scientific establishment is using subjective probability in a different way, by all means, show us! But don’t keep asserting it like it has been established. That isn’t productive.
The point of the comment was to express disapproval of the idea that scientists had multiple different conceptions of subjective probability—and that the Bayesian approach gave a different answer to other ones—and to highlight exactly where I differed from garethrees—mostly for his benefit.