In Defense of Probability (1985) [pdf]

If you are interested in a deeper dive into the topics covered in this paper I would suggest &quot;Probability Theory: The Logic of Science&quot; by E. T. Jaynes<p>available at<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www-biba.inrialpes.fr&#x2F;Jaynes&#x2F;cpreambl.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www-biba.inrialpes.fr&#x2F;Jaynes&#x2F;cpreambl.pdf</a><p>It is probably (ha!) the most enlightening math book I have ever read.

There&#x27;s a higher quality PDF available [here](<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;citeseerx.ist.psu.edu&#x2F;viewdoc&#x2F;download?doi=10.1.1.13.2787&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;citeseerx.ist.psu.edu&#x2F;viewdoc&#x2F;download?doi=10.1.1.13....</a>), it has a credit footnote: &quot;Converted to electronic version by: Roby Joehanes, Kansas State University.&quot;<p>That person already did the OCR cleaning (and the fonts are nicer).

Its ironic, today we could really use a paper &quot;in defense of fuzzy logic&quot;

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&#x27;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>&quot;In this paper, it is argued that probability theory, when used correctly, is <i>suffrcient</i> for the task of reasoning under uncertainty.&quot;