That seems to apply to ruling out Bayesian priors, and I think it's perfectly reasonable for society to disallow certain forms of evidence in the interest of en

That seems to apply to ruling out Bayesian priors, and I think it's perfectly reasonable for society to disallow certain forms of evidence in the interest of ensuring fairness, perhaps including Bayesian priors. But this article points out that it goes beyond that, into ruling out the entire idea of epistemic uncertainty: > You cannot properly say that there is a 25 per cent chance that something has happened: Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority [1987] AC 750. Either it has or it has not.