Epistemic probabilities are degrees of support, not degrees of (rational) belief

I argue that when we use ‘probability’ language in epistemic contexts—e.g., ask how probable some hypothesis is, given the evidence available to us—we are talking about degrees of support, rather than belief. The probability A B is mind-independent degree which supports A, not someone with as their believes or would should believe if they had evidence. My central argument degree-of-support interpretation lets us better model good reasoning certain cases involving old Degree-of-belief interpretations make wrong predictions only whether confirms new hypotheses, but values probabilities enter into Bayes' Theorem calculate hypotheses conditional on and background information.