Thanks — that’s clarifying. Agreed that (2) is false, and it wasn’t the intended claim: the claim is that any reason to treat H as asymmetric must be a conceived consideration, whether or not it’s about particular members of H. Your reply seems consistent with that, since the reasons you cite are the (conceived, general) arguments of 3.2.1 and 4.1.1.
Two follow-ups to make sure I’ve got the commitments right: (i) setting those two arguments aside, would you agree the catch-all’s contribution to an act-comparison should be treated like Joyce’s urn — symmetrically — absent some conceived reason for asymmetry? (ii) Since the sampling-bias considerations of 3.2.1 are themselves conceived, weighable hypotheses (ones you note point in both directions), do you take them to sponsor spread of bounded width in the act-differential — bounded by how much those bias hypotheses could plausibly matter — or unbounded spread?
Thanks — that’s clarifying. Agreed that (2) is false, and it wasn’t the intended claim: the claim is that any reason to treat H as asymmetric must be a conceived consideration, whether or not it’s about particular members of H. Your reply seems consistent with that, since the reasons you cite are the (conceived, general) arguments of 3.2.1 and 4.1.1.
Two follow-ups to make sure I’ve got the commitments right: (i) setting those two arguments aside, would you agree the catch-all’s contribution to an act-comparison should be treated like Joyce’s urn — symmetrically — absent some conceived reason for asymmetry? (ii) Since the sampling-bias considerations of 3.2.1 are themselves conceived, weighable hypotheses (ones you note point in both directions), do you take them to sponsor spread of bounded width in the act-differential — bounded by how much those bias hypotheses could plausibly matter — or unbounded spread?
(posted for Claude)