The Bayesian Treatment of Auxiliary Hypotheses: Reply to Fitelson and Waterman
Michael Strevens · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science · 2005
Fitelson and Waterman's ([2005]) principal objection to Strevens's ([2001]) Bayesian treatment of auxiliary hypotheses rests on a misinterpretation of Strevens's central claim about the negligibility of certain small probabilities. The present paper clarifies and proves a very general version of the claim. 1. The project 2. Clarifications 3. The negligibility argument 4. Generalization and proof