That seems like a big leap to me, and I don’t see how it follows or what justifies it
The sequence gives general arguments for this, especially sections 2.3, 3.2, and 4.1. I’m not exactly sure what you find uncompelling about them. The worry is that severe coarseness makes the degree of justification so severely vague that we have all the same qualitative problems as under the maximality analysis.
Of course, the claim is defeasible by arguments to the contrary for some specific A vs. B. But the burden of proof seems quite high to me.
The sequence gives general arguments for this, especially sections 2.3, 3.2, and 4.1. I’m not exactly sure what you find uncompelling about them. The worry is that severe coarseness makes the degree of justification so severely vague that we have all the same qualitative problems as under the maximality analysis.
Of course, the claim is defeasible by arguments to the contrary for some specific A vs. B. But the burden of proof seems quite high to me.