We propose representing a (possibly imprecise) epistemic state using a probability filter focusing on probabilistic properties, such as whether pr(A)>0.2. It is very expressively powerful.
Cases where every credence undermines its own adoption seem to lead to epistemic dilemmas. We move to considering indeterminate credences and look at what is determinately recommended of you. By doing this, we propose that the epistemic dilemmas are avoided.
We show that Moss’s model of uncertainty is at least as expressively powerful as every other current imprecise probability framework. And we give a Dutch Book argument for certain failures of consistency.
For more details, email me.
We argue that the model of probabilities needs revising when non-classical logics are considered. For strong-Kleene logic we suggest a belief-pair, and for supervaluational logic adopt imprecise probability.