[ QUOTE ]
The reason this issue is cloudy is due to different interpretations of probability. DS takes a Bayesian approach to probability, and clearly PTB does not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for that link inlemur. I did not realize there was such a "Baysian" camp out there. The term "Baysian" is a little misleading I think. I believe all Mathematical Probabilty is being done by "Relative Frequentists" and they all make extensive use of Bayes Theorem. According to the link, "Baysian Probabilty" refers to a Philosophy. The philosophy evidently asserts that it is meaningful to use the term probabilty in ways that don't have the precise mathematical meanings that are used in Mathematical Probabilty - ie. Relative Frequency Probabilty. It's not suprising that as the link points out, Mathematical probablists don't attend the Conferences of Baysian Probablists. They are basically speaking a different language.
But you are correct in pointing out that David has the right to go with the Baysian Crowd in his use of language if he so desires. I don't see the need for creating the confusion though myself. You can use "degree of certainty" language just as easily without constantly making us wonder whether the "probabilty" you refer to carries the precise meaning of mathematical probabilists or the Philisophically Debatable meaning of the "Baysians".
PairTheBoard