{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiaykjkiay76nvwfighl2yotux2jzl7dqv6h4iyffjt5qvocoocl7e",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:6t55zewcvauifrt5ts3usclu/app.bsky.feed.post/3mlvxmonynrj2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreidbbdhtnflx56qmdeapa7nnwxglznnonr2iogwmsrwilonbfylsqq"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/png",
    "size": 5868
  },
  "path": "/questions/138422/how-should-we-address-the-claim-that-the-standard-argument-for-epistemic-probabi",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-15T10:20:05.000Z",
  "site": "https://philosophy.stackexchange.com",
  "title": "How should we address the claim that the standard argument for epistemic probability might be \"methodologically fragile\"? – philosophy.stackexchange.com",
  "updatedAt": "2026-05-15T12:16:54.000Z"
}