non-fundamentelness of probabilities

Chapter1_Introduction/Chapter1_Introduction.ipynb

@@ -239,6 +239,8 @@
       "\n",
       "Notice that the plots are not always *peaked* at 0.5. There is no reason it should be: recall we assumed we did not have a prior opinion of what $p$ is. In fact, if we observe quite extreme data, say 8 flips and only 1 observed heads, our distribution would look very biased *away* from lumping around 0.5 (with no prior opinion, how confident would you feel betting on a fair coin after observing 8 tails and 1 head). As more data accumulates, we would see more and more probability being assigned at $p=0.5$, though never all of it.\n",
       "\n",
+      "**Potential point of confusion**: We're talking about probabilities in the above two paragraphs, but the use of a probability here isn't fundamental to the math. We're only talking about probability because we decided to estimate the probability that a coin lands heads. We could just as easily decide to estimate the average time it takes for the coin to land, in which case the x-axes on these graphs would be times (maybe in seconds) rather than probabilities.\n",
+      "\n",
       "The next example is a simple demonstration of the mathematics of Bayesian inference. "
      ]
     },