For a timely assessment of Keynes's Treatise by Russell just follow this
link: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3603283 (accessed: 16/01/2015)
The Treatise was reviewed by Russell in The Mathematical Gazette in 1922.

As for the claim that Keynes's formal system was only meaninful for
numerical probabilities, it should be considered that the foundational study
by Peter Walley, Statistical Reasoning with imprecise probabilities, builds
on Keynes's Treatise.

Best, Carlo Zappia

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 04:14:46 -0400, Rob Tye <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Dear Pedro,
>
>You write: “Wittgenstein's *Tractatus* was published in English in 1922,
>thus many years prior to Keynes's criticisms of Tinbergen”
>
>Am currently struggling with this history myself, so would welcome
>comment/criticism. Rather contra your suggestion I am sympathetic to what
>seems surely to be Russell’s view,  that the whole school around the later
>Wittgenstein was misguided in an anti-scientific way.  Plus I am sympathetic
>to Carabelli’s reconstruction, in which the later Wittgenstein school has
>its roots in the very early work of Wittgenstein’s supporter (and probably
>mentor?) Keynes.
>
>I have (at least!) a couple of puzzles:
>
>1)  Russell rejects Keynes’ TP as anti-scientific in HK (1948) - but in very
>mild terms, when contrasted with his comments on the Wittgenstein school. 
>Russell and Keynes apparently broke personally rather acrimoniously in 1915,
>but perhaps in 1948 Russell’s treatment of (recently dead) Keynes was in
>part tempered by lingering affection from their youthful friendship?
>
>2)  Keynes “Theory of Probability” seems massively inconsistent as a piece
>of work.  Much stress is laid on the non-numerical, ordinal nature of most
>probability judgements early in the book, and then much space to developing
>a (contradictory) formal system which is only meaningful for numerical
>probabilities.  So far I only found use of the word “some” bearing on this
>matter, which seems inadequate in the face of the scale of inconsistency
>involved.  Perhaps I missed something?
>
>Best Wishes
>
>Rob Tye
>========================================================================