The Discussion Article cited is extraordinary from several perspectives. It
This comment repudiates these bold claims made by Hazelrigg and Klutke. It is divided into four topics; interpretation of probability, uncertainty of probability, model validation, and advanced UQ frameworks.
Hazelrigg and Klutke assert a consensus around the interpretation of probability where none has ever existed. The dogmatic subjectivism they espouse is a position with an established literature, but that's all it is. For the past 40 years, mutual tolerance has been the order of the day. Pragmatic Bayesians and frequentists alike have recognized that each camp brings unique tools and perspectives that often prove useful in practice.
One of the reasons the Bayesian/frequentist debate has settled into its long stalemate is that it cannot be resolved through mathematics alone. The whole debate turns on how mathematics relate to reality in the context of UQ....