The prohibition on presupposing contingent truths conflates the object-language content of hypotheses with the meta-level structural constraints that define a coherent probability space.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Meta-level(as used in logic and philosophy of language): A higher level of thinking where you analyze or talk about something itself, rather than using it directly—like discussing grammar rules rather than just speaking.
Presupposing(what the externalist secretly assumes in their reasoning): To assume something is already true without proving it, usually without realizing you're doing it.
Probability space(The unified system where acts, states, and outcomes interact in Jeffrey's framework): A mathematical structure that shows all the possible outcomes of a situation and assigns probabilities (chances) to each one.
coherent(de Finetti's usage in the context of the Dutch Book argument for probabilism): A subject is coherent if their unconditional degrees of belief do not permit a Dutch Book (a guaranteed loss through a combination of bets) to be made against them
contingent truths(Contrasted with the modal collapse implied by sσ ⊃• □•sσ): Truths that are not necessarily determined; truths that could have been otherwise
object-language(Davidsonian theory of meaning): The language to which a theory of meaning applies

2 topics