According to DD evidence doesnt “confirm” anything. It never justifies belief or increases probability of theory being right.
Evidence can only falsify a theory outright. Or it can fail to find a flaw, leaving the theory “unrefuted for now.”
There is no middle state in which evidence makes the theory more likely true.
The root cause of the problem as I see it is that hierarchies are often based on dominance, exploitation, and power accumulation, rather than moral or epistemic impartiality. This creates a system where trustworthiness is undervalued, and poverty persists. What we need is an accurate instrument to measure trustworthiness. Once we have that, hierarchies will change, the environment will change, and trustworthiness will become the foundation of success. Adoption of the trustwortiness instrument will ultimately eliminate poverty.
Deutsch’s objection is not to Bayes’ theorem itself but to the idea that updating numbers is what science is about. In his Popperian picture, knowledge grows through explanatory creativity and critical elimination, and the notion that evidence confirms or raises the probability of a sweeping theory is, literally, impossible.