Does the fact that CF eliminates credences completely mean that whoever is applying CF in practice never considers credence for anything, never reports credence for anything, never asks others for credence for anything? Does CF recommend that nobody ever considers credence?
For me there is a lot of uncertainty about the meaning of reasoning in terms of models, reasoning in terms of propositions, meaning of being a (not) Bayesian in practice.
For example:
Is reasoning in terms of propositions necessarily takes away from reasoning in terms of models?
Can it be be part of reasoning in terms of models?
Are there other modes of reasoning?
This is an obstacle for figuring out what one can implement in practice differently if they become convinced with every argument you make in this post.
The following might help with this.
Could you prov...
My current guesses about what you mean by "decisive argument" and "indecisive argument": Every "indecisive argument" is not formally logically valid. Every "decisive argument" is formally logically valid. If something of this is incorrect, then please, let me know.
Ideas which are either false or true can be evaluated on a scale of plausibility. Do you think this may be useful at ti... (read more)