If you are interested in a deeper dive into the topics covered in this paper I would suggest
"Probability Theory:
The Logic of Science"
by E. T. Jaynes<p>available at<a href="http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/cpreambl.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www-biba.inrialpes.fr/Jaynes/cpreambl.pdf</a><p>It is probably (ha!) the most enlightening math book I have ever read.
There's a higher quality PDF available [here](<a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.13.2787&rep=rep1&type=pdf" rel="nofollow">http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.13....</a>), it has a credit footnote: "Converted to electronic version by: Roby Joehanes, Kansas State University."<p>That person already did the OCR cleaning (and the fonts are nicer).
I could add that truth-likeness might not adequately accommodated by a subjective-probability degree-of-belief model. For example, while I might believe both of these propositions to be true, p=1, one is more uhh truth like:<p>Donald Trump weighs 107 kg.
Donald Trump weighs less than the sun.
I suspect that the author's assertion that the degree of belief model is sufficient to account for vagueness in propositions cannot really be defended. Its also obvious the author is not a logician.
Why is there a glaring typo in the first sentence of the abstract?<p>"In this paper, it is argued that probability theory, when
used correctly, is <i>suffrcient</i> for the task of reasoning under uncertainty."