The money analogy. Textbooks and Wikipedia say that money is a medium of exchange and a store of value and a unit of account. Generally we have no difficulty understanding that the same thing can have different uses. But the usual treatment of Interpretations of Probability discusses Logical probability and Subjective probability and Frequency Interpretations and Propensity Interpretations as if these were alternate theologies of which only one could be true. But this is silly. In discussing money, the issue isn't what money is, the issue is what money is for. Analogously the issue is what probability is for, and having different ways of thinking about what it is for is a good thing, not an obstacle.
Earth, water, air, fire. While other objects may be intuitively associated with one or more of these classical elements, few people nowadays believe this leads to a meaningful classification of objects in general. Analogously, discussing aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty via iconic simple examples of each suggests that the writer believes it is practical and useful to decompose a typical instance of uncertainty as some kind of mixture of these two concepts. But I think this is simply not true for most instances of serious real-world uncertainty about the future, as discussed here.
To me the fundamental question is
In what real world contexts is it both practical and useful to attempt to estimate numerical probabilities?I don't claim to have a good answer, but will suggest ways of thinking about this question. One background desideratum would be an exhaustive list of contexts where we perceive chance, and the link goes to my draft attempt at compiling such a list. Another way is to ask if there are general reasons why we might care about probabilities; this obviously relales to the useful aspect of our fundamental question. Below are three other background thoughts.
A qualitative sense of likelihood, for instance a conscious recognition of some future events as likely and some as unlikely, is part of the common sense that the human species is endowed with.
Somewhat bizarrely, such ratings have even been used when asking for expert probability forecasts -- see this graphic from the 2016 Global Risks Landscape in which participants were asked to assess likelihood on a scale of 1 to 7. Doing so precludes the retrospective analysis of accuracy which can be done in proper prediction tournaments.
Whenever we think about probabilities, we are consciously recognizing unpredictability or uncertainty. But not conversely. There are many settings where we recognize unpredictability but do not naturally think in terms of chance. And there are many settings where we do think in terms of likely/unlikely but do not care to attempt a quantitative assessment of probability.So all this is background for what I regard as the fundamental conceptual question
In what real world contexts is it both practical and useful to attempt to estimate numerical probabilities?