Do we need "motivation, background, and spelled out reasoning" for any question that is not easily parceled up?
So I posted this question, and apparently it doesn't make sense, because I have not explained my motivation, background, and reasoning, even-though I did all these things (both in the question and in comments).
Reasoning: I was disappointed it's (Bayesian epistemology) not more received, but that's obviously cos it's new.
Motivation: I'm pretty ignorant of both. I find the question exciting, both (Bayesian epistemology and paraconsistent logic) being cutting edge. I think both will fit together (they do, see the article in comments) and (as I commented) I think much everyday reasoning might borrow from BOTH.
Background: I've encountered Bayesian epistemology before, but it was quite some time ago.
How much more of these things do we need? Do I need to write a sprawling personal statement to ask unusual questions?
More generally, can people not separate out the salient points in an exchange? And respond to them, rather than top down processing of philosophy.stack?